Andrew J Musser1, Margherita Maiuri2, Daniele Brida3, Giulio Cerullo2, Richard H Friend1, Jenny Clark4. 1. †Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom. 2. ‡IFN-CNR, Dipartimento di Fisica, Politecnico di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy. 3. §Department of Physics and Center for Applied Photonics, University of Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany. 4. ∥Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S3 7RH, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Singlet exciton fission allows the fast and efficient generation of two spin triplet states from one photoexcited singlet. It has the potential to improve organic photovoltaics, enabling efficient coupling to the blue to ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum to capture the energy generally lost as waste heat. However, many questions remain about the underlying fission mechanism. The relation between intermolecular geometry and singlet fission rate and yield is poorly understood and remains one of the most significant barriers to the design of new singlet fission sensitizers. Here we explore the structure-property relationship and examine the mechanism of singlet fission in aggregates of astaxanthin, a small polyene. We isolate five distinct supramolecular structures of astaxanthin generated through self-assembly in solution. Each is capable of undergoing intermolecular singlet fission, with rates of triplet generation and annihilation that can be correlated with intermolecular coupling strength. In contrast with the conventional model of singlet fission in linear molecules, we demonstrate that no intermediate states are involved in the triplet formation: instead, singlet fission occurs directly from the initial 1B(u) photoexcited state on ultrafast time scales. This result demands a re-evaluation of current theories of polyene photophysics and highlights the robustness of carotenoid singlet fission.
Singlet exciton fission allows the fast and efficient generation of two spin triplet states from one photoexcited singlet. It has the potential to improve organic photovoltaics, enabling efficient coupling to the blue to ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum to capture the energy generally lost as waste heat. However, many questions remain about the underlying fission mechanism. The relation between intermolecular geometry and singlet fission rate and yield is poorly understood and remains one of the most significant barriers to the design of new singlet fission sensitizers. Here we explore the structure-property relationship and examine the mechanism of singlet fission in aggregates of astaxanthin, a small polyene. We isolate five distinct supramolecular structures of astaxanthin generated through self-assembly in solution. Each is capable of undergoing intermolecular singlet fission, with rates of triplet generation and annihilation that can be correlated with intermolecular coupling strength. In contrast with the conventional model of singlet fission in linear molecules, we demonstrate that no intermediate states are involved in the triplet formation: instead, singlet fission occurs directly from the initial 1B(u) photoexcited state on ultrafast time scales. This result demands a re-evaluation of current theories of polyene photophysics and highlights the robustness of carotenoid singlet fission.
Singlet exciton fission
is the quantum mechanical process by which
a singlet exciton splits into two distinct spin triplet excitons.
The triplets are initially coupled into an overall singlet state,
conserving spin and allowing for extremely fast and highly efficient
triplet formation.[1−3] This phenomenon has recently become the object of
intense study due to its proposed use for carrier multiplication in
solar cells.[4] Singlet fission has already
been successfully harnessed in devices,[5−9] in some exceptional cases with an internal quantum efficiency near
200%.[10,11] The record external quantum efficiency in
these systems of 135% is the highest achieved for any photovoltaic
technology, demonstrating the great potential of singlet fission devices.
Further practical advances will demand a more thorough understanding
of the underlying mechanism of singlet fission, as well as how it
relates to intermolecular structure. For example, it has been shown
in amorphous films of diphenyltetracene that long-range order is not
required for efficient triplet formation,[12] but other studies on disordered systems highlight the importance
of specific local interactions.[13,14] These local interactions,
and particularly the strength of intermolecular coupling, have been
proposed to play a central role in determining the rate and dominant
mechanism of singlet fission—nonadiabatic or adiabatic—in
a new model covering all acenes.[15]This significant progress has occurred almost exclusively within
a relatively narrow class of materials: tetracene, pentacene, and
their derivatives. This restricts the understanding of structure–property
relationships and singlet fission mechanisms needed to develop new
materials and broaden the library of candidate chromophores. One class
of materials with significant promise for singlet fission is the polyenes,[1] which are characterized by a low-lying (dark)
excited state of the same Ag symmetry as the ground state.
The theoretical basis for fission in these materials lies in the symmetry
of this state, which has an equivalent description as a weakly coupled
pair of triplet excitons, suggesting the possibility of intramolecular
singlet fission.[16] Indeed, intramolecular
singlet fission has been observed in some conjugated polymers.[17−21] However, as we have previously shown in poly(3-dodecylthienylenevinylene),
intramolecular singlet fission does not actually proceed via the expected
2Ag state but occurs directly from the initially photoexcited
1Bu exciton.[21] In carotenoids,
too, singlet fission has been observed; these polyenes are evidently
too short to support intramolecular triplet pair formation but undergo
singlet fission in biological complexes with proteins[22−24] or in self-assembled aggregates.[25−27] It is not clear how
the original 2Ag mediated mechanism can be extended to
these materials, as the model is fundamentally intramolecular in nature.
Wang and Tauber[25] have suggested that singlet
fission in carotenoid aggregates does not involve the 2Ag state, but no studies have been made with sufficient time resolution
to confirm this hypothesis.Here we use broadband transient
absorption spectroscopy from the
tens of femtoseconds to microseconds time scales to investigate the
singlet fission process in aggregates of the carotenoidastaxanthin
(Figure 1a). We study a series of five distinct
aggregates to determine both the role of intermolecular structure
and the interplay between triplet formation and internal conversion
to the 2Ag state. We show that intermolecular singlet fission
in polyenes follows the same mechanism—direct formation from
1Bu (Figure 1d)—observed
in the intramolecular polymer system reported previously.[21] The initial rate of triplet formation is seen
to only weakly correlate with the strength of intermolecular coupling
with a fastest time constant of only 65 fs, among the fastest of any
reported system. These results raise important questions about the
electronic structure and intermolecular interactions of the polyenes
and also point the way toward a universal mechanism for ultrafast
singlet fission.
Figure 1
Aggregation of astaxanthin. (a) AXT chemical structure.
(b) Normalized
UV–vis absorption of five stable aggregates of AXT in 9:1 water:DMSO
(I and II) or 4:1 water:acetone (III–V) as well as monomeric
AXT in acetone (dashed). Vertical lines indicate pump photon energies
used for TA measurements. (c) Model of exciton decay in monomeric
AXT. Ultrafast internal conversion from 1Bu to 2Ag is followed by fast nonradiative decay to the ground state. (d)
Model of singlet fission and triplet annihilation in carotenoid aggregates,
as measured here. Upon aggregation, the 1Bu state no longer
couples to 2Ag. Instead, it converts directly into triplet
pairs via singlet fission. The 2Ag state is lower in energy
than the triplet pair and enables efficient recombination back to
the ground state.
Aggregation of astaxanthin. (a) AXT chemical structure.
(b) Normalized
UV–vis absorption of five stable aggregates of AXT in 9:1 water:DMSO
(I and II) or 4:1 water:acetone (III–V) as well as monomeric
AXT in acetone (dashed). Vertical lines indicate pump photon energies
used for TA measurements. (c) Model of exciton decay in monomeric
AXT. Ultrafast internal conversion from 1Bu to 2Ag is followed by fast nonradiative decay to the ground state. (d)
Model of singlet fission and triplet annihilation in carotenoid aggregates,
as measured here. Upon aggregation, the 1Bu state no longer
couples to 2Ag. Instead, it converts directly into triplet
pairs via singlet fission. The 2Ag state is lower in energy
than the triplet pair and enables efficient recombination back to
the ground state.
Experimental
Section
Racemic astaxanthin (AXT) was generously donated
by BASF. Type-A
gelatin and C60 fullerene were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Enantiomerically pure 3S,3′S-, 3S,3′R-, and 3R,3′R-astaxanthin for circular dichroism
measurements were purchased from CaroteNature. All materials were
used as received without further purification.AXT monomer solutions
were prepared at a concentration of 100 μM
in acetone or DMSO and heated at 50 °C until clear. The series
of five distinct, stable aggregate solutions (Figure 1a) was prepared as follows. For aggregate I a 420 μM
solution of AXT in DMSO at room temperature was mixed in a 1:9 ratio
with water at 5 °C. Aggregate II was prepared by mixing a 1000
μM solution of AXT in DMSO at 80 °C in a 1:9 ratio with
water at 80 °C. The three red-shifted aggregates were prepared
instead from acetone stock solutions heated to 65 °C, and to
impart long-term colloidal stability, type-A gelatin aqueous solutions
at 50 °C were used instead of pure water.[28,29] The organic:aqueous mixing ratio for all three species was 1:4.
Aggregate III used an AXT concentration of 250 μM and a 5 mg/mL
gelatin solution. The AXT stock concentration for aggregate IV was
375 μM, with a gelatin concentration of 2.5 mg/mL. Aggregate
V was prepared with the same acetone stock as aggregate IV and a higher
gelatin content of 10 mg/mL, and the solution was heated at 65 °C
for an additional 10 min after mixing. All aggregate solutions were
stored in the dark at room temperature. Time-resolved measurements
were only performed on aggregates that were stable for >1 week.Sub-picosecond transient absorption (TA) measurements were performed
on a previously reported setup[21] with slight
modifications. Narrow-band (∼10 nm) excitation pulses were
generated in an optical parametric amplifier (TOPAS, Light Conversion
Ltd.) coupled to the output of a 1 kHz regenerative amplifier (Spectra-Physics
Solstice). To ensure that TA spectra reflected specific aggregate
types rather than mixtures of species, pump photon energies were scanned
across the aggregate absorption bands (vertical lines in Figure 1a), with typical pump fluences below 4 × 1014 photons/pulse-cm2. Because excessive pump fluence
results in spurious ultrafast effects, all measurements were also
performed at lower fluence, and the fluence dependence was studied
in detail for all samples (see below). The sample transmission was
probed using broadband pulses generated in two home-built non-collinear
optical parametric amplifiers (NOPAs) roughly spanning 0.75–2.5
eV.[30,31] The probe beam was split to provide a reference
signal not affected by the pump to mitigate any laser fluctuation
effects, and both were dispersed in a spectrometer (Andor, Shamrock
SR-303i) and detected using a pair of linear image sensors (Hamamatsu,
G11608) driven and read out at the full laser repetition rate by a
custom-built board from Stresing Entwicklungsbüro. The differential
transmission (ΔT/T) was then
measured as a function of probe photon energy and pump–probe
delay. This setup afforded a temporal resolution of approximately
120 fs. The same setup was employed for nanosecond TA, using the frequency-doubled
(2.33 eV) nanosecond output of a Q-switched Nd:YVO4 laser as the excitation
source. High-time-resolution measurements were also performed on a
similar setup, in which both the pump and probe beams were generated
by home-built NOPAs generating sub-30 fs (pump) and sub-10 fs (probe)
pulses using chirped mirror compression.
Results and Discussion
The spectra in Figure 1a demonstrate the
great potential of astaxanthin (AXT) aggregates for a study of structure–property
relations in singlet fission. This system is noteworthy both for the
large number of distinct aggregates formed and the wide range over
which the primary absorption band can be tuned—approximately
1.2 eV—through simple control of water content, temperature,
and gelatin stabilization. AXT also appears to be unique in having
two blue-shifted structures and the strongly red-shifted aggregate
V, which is unlike any other reported carotenoid aggregates.We consider that the UV–vis absorption spectra shown here
represent distinct aggregate types, rather than mixed populations.
Because these aggregates form through gradual transitions from one
species to the next (see Supporting Information,
Figures S1 and S2), it is easy to generate mixtures of species
through slight changes in preparation conditions. In all cases, the
UV–vis spectra of such samples can be decomposed into the species
shown in Figure 1a. To control for the possibility
of aggregate mixtures, we performed TA measurements with selective
excitation across the absorption band (see below and Supporting Information, Figures S6–S10). Only aggregate
III showed an excitation dependence suggestive of heterogeneity.The determination of the structure of carotenoid aggregates is
a long-standing problem,[32−37] and the diversity of intermolecular packing attained here highlights
its complexity. From the UV–vis absorption spectra alone, little
can be determined about the relevant intermolecular parameters. In
the absence of vibronic structure at room temperature,[38] we cannot quantify changes in the 0 0/0–1
peak ratios. Likewise, the degree of red- or blue-shift, a gauge of
the strength of exciton coupling, cannot be determined precisely due
to significant solvatochromism (see Supporting
Information, Figure S3). We focus instead on a qualitative
description. Aggregate I is strongly blue-shifted and exhibits significant
narrowing of the absorption band—it is best described as a
strongly coupled H-aggregate. Aggregate II exhibits a weaker blue-shift
as well as a change in shape that would be consistent with a decrease
in the 0–0/0–1 peak ratio, making it most likely a weakly
coupled H-aggregate. Aggregate III is a borderline case which would
typically be described as a J-aggregate, but on the basis of Spano’s
analysis of lutein aggregates,[37] it may
equally be a very weakly coupled H aggregate. The appearance of a
pronounced 0–0 peak and strong red-shift in aggregates IV and
V is characteristic of J-aggregation, which is presumed to be the
primary interaction in these species.Further insight can be
gained from comparison to reported spectra.
Aggregates similar to I are almost exclusively formed by carotenoids
with at least one hydroxyl group on the terminal rings, pointing to
the importance of intermolecular hydrogen bonding.[33,39] The observed sensitivity of the formation of I to pH is consistent
with this motif. Furthermore, the absorption spectrum of crustochrin,
a carotenoprotein predominant in yellow lobster carapace, is almost
identical to that of aggregate I, and the two share similar Raman
signatures.[40] However, that protein has
never been crystallized, and little is known about the orientation
or coupling of the AXT molecules in this material. Aggregates such
as II are preferentially formed by carotenoids with carbonyl but no
hydroxyl groups;[33] it is likely that in
this species the supramolecular structure is primarily mediated through
the C–H···O motif described by Bartalucci et
al.[41] for crystals of AXT and canthaxanthin.
Strongly red-shifted AXT aggregates such as IV and V have long been
studied in the context of lobster coloration. The primary carotenoprotein
in lobster carapace, crustacyanin, exhibits a similarly pronounced
red shift.[41−43] Recent studies attribute the bulk of this effect
to planarization of the AXT molecules within the protein so that the
terminal rings lie in trans conformation, with a consequent extension
of the conjugation length.[42] Indeed, the
spectra of IV and V each closely match different portions of the reported
absorption of a crystal of an all-trans AXT derivative.[43] We thus consider species IV and V to contain
all-trans AXT, with packing similar to the reported crystal structure.
The fact that each aggregate agrees so well with a separate section
of the crystal spectrum indicates the presence of two polymorphs in
the solid state.The UV–vis absorption and circular dichroism
data (Supporting Information, Figure S4) at hand are
insufficient to reliably determine the intermolecular packing in these
aggregates, and further structural characterization is needed. For
our purposes here, it is sufficient to rank them by approximate strength
of intermolecular coupling: I > V > IV > III ∼ II.
Monomeric
AXT Photophysics
To establish a baseline
for the photophysical behavior of AXT, we first examine the excited
state processes of monomeric AXT in pure organic solution. Because
the carotenoids exhibit pronounced solvatochromism (Suporting Information, Figure S3), monomer solutions were
prepared in both acetone and DMSO. The key results of TA measurements
on AXT monomers excited at the absorption maximum are presented in
Figure 2. Our TA results are presented throughout
in units of ΔT/T, in which
the absorption of photogenerated states appears negative. Positive
features can reflect either increased transmission of the probe through
the sample due to bleaching of the ground state or probe amplification
arising from stimulated emission. Using 120 fs excitation pulses,
the results for the two solvents were almost identical save for a
slight red-shift of all photoinduced absorption (PIA) features in
DMSO (Figure S3), so only the acetone data
will be addressed here. AXT shows the characteristic polyene behavior
illustrated in Figure 1c and can be described
in terms of just two states.
Figure 2
Monomer transient absorption. (a) Selected sub-ps
TA timeslices
following excitation at 2.6 eV with 26 μJ/cm2. A
three-state model is sufficient to describe these data. The initial
1Bu PIA can only be clearly observed within the pump pulse
duration (black), and it decays to form the well-known 2Ag PIA in the visible region. The region below 1.1 eV is magnified
10× to show the weak 2Ag → 1Bu PIA.
(b) The corresponding decay kinetics (lines) show direct, instrument-limited
conversion from 1Bu to 2Ag and rapid decay to
the ground state. These processes are completely independent of pump
fluence over nearly 2 orders of magnitude (symbols, data normalized
with respect to pump intensity) The data for 0.78 eV are magnified
by a factor of 4 for clarity.
Monomer transient absorption. (a) Selected sub-ps
TA timeslices
following excitation at 2.6 eV with 26 μJ/cm2. A
three-state model is sufficient to describe these data. The initial
1Bu PIA can only be clearly observed within the pump pulse
duration (black), and it decays to form the well-known 2Ag PIA in the visible region. The region below 1.1 eV is magnified
10× to show the weak 2Ag → 1Bu PIA.
(b) The corresponding decay kinetics (lines) show direct, instrument-limited
conversion from 1Bu to 2Ag and rapid decay to
the ground state. These processes are completely independent of pump
fluence over nearly 2 orders of magnitude (symbols, data normalized
with respect to pump intensity) The data for 0.78 eV are magnified
by a factor of 4 for clarity.Within the instrument response (black trace), a sharp PIA
can be
detected between 1.0 and 1.5 eV, accompanied by a positive feature
around 2.25 eV which agrees well with steady-state photoluminescence
spectra and can be assigned to stimulated emission. These are the
signatures of the initial 1Bu exciton, which decays with
instrument-limited kinetics to the dark 2Ag state (green
traces). This state shows a pronounced PIA peaked at 2.05 eV as well
as a weak PIA tail at the low-energy edge of the available spectral
range, assigned to the 2Ag → 1Bu transition.[44] As in other polyenes, after fast thermalization
the 2Ag state decays uniformly and nonradiatively back
to the ground state through efficient coupling to the vibrational
manifold. We thus treat the monomer decay as following the simple
model of 1Bu → hot 2Ag → 2Ag → 1Ag (ground state).The entire
spectral range can be fitted well with three time constants:
an instrument-limited 120 fs constant describing the internal conversion
from 1Bu, a 200 fs thermalization within the 2Ag manifold and a 5 ps final decay to the ground state. This behavior
is completely independent of pump fluence for all spectral features
over nearly 2 orders of magnitude (Figure 2b). There is no sign of or apparent need for intermediate states
between 1Bu and 2Ag to explain these results,
as confirmed with sub-30 fs TA measurements (see below). It should
be stressed that there is also no sign of triplet formation by singlet
fission or any other process at any pump photon energy; individual
carotenoid molecules are evidently too small to support triplet pair
states.
Carotenoid Aggregate Photophysics
TA measurements were
performed on all five aggregates at four or more pump photon energies.
Due to the overall similarity of the aggregate TA data, only the representative
aggregates II (weak H-aggregate) and IV (strong J-aggregate) will
be discussed in detail here. The spectra of other aggregates and other
pump photon energies can be found in the Supporting
Information, Figures S5–S10. Comparison of the TA spectra
for aggregate II in Figure 3a,b with the monomer
data in Figure 2 reveals two immediate differences:
the PIA bands are broader and much less pronounced in II, and the
final decay is significantly slower. As will be shown below in Figure 4, the final state in this aggregate is the triplet.
Its PIA is dominant well before 3 ps (see below), and the spectrum
decays without further evolution out to the μs time scale. The
only spectral changes that can be clearly discerned occur on an ultrafast
instrument-limited time scale: much like in monomeric AXT the initial
excited state absorbs in the NIR, seen as a broad, weak PIA in the
earliest TA spectrum. As shown in Figure 3c,
the decay of the NIR band is matched by the decay of the slight ground-state
bleach (GSB) observed around 2.4 eV. This kinetic reflects the sub-ps
formation of triplet PIA, which strongly overlaps with the ground-state
absorption and results in a negative overall signal.
Figure 3
Transient absorption
of AXT aggregates. (a) Selected timeslices
from sub-ps TA of II excited at 2.6 eV. The prompt decay of the broad
NIR PIA is the only significant spectral change in the entire measurement
range and reflects internal conversion from the initial 1Bu state. (b) Timeslices from ns TA show continued uniform decay of
the state formed within 3 ps. (c) Integrated decay kinetics from sub-ps
TA reveal instrument-limited decay of the GSB and NIR PIA (solid lines)
to form the final state. (d) Equivalent sub-ps measurement of IV excited
at 2.3 eV, showing similar rapid decay of the initial band in the
NIR and formation of the final state within 3 ps, which (e) uniformly
decays on the μs time scale. (f) Integrated decay kinetics from
sub-ps TA of IV show an instrument-limited internal conversion from
the initial state (thin solid line) similar to II. The slower rise
at 1.94 eV reflects a gradual shift of the crossing point between
GSB and PIA, related to the generation of vibrationally excited ground
states following nonradiative decay of triplet pairs.[21]
Figure 4
Triplet identification. (a) Integrated decay
kinetics from all
species, at the peak of PIA, following excitation at 2.3 eV. All aggregates
(solid) show an enhancement of the final state lifetime of 5 orders
of magnitude, relative to the monomer (dashed). (b) Comparison of
the TA signal at 100 ns for all five aggregates reveals the same PIA
signature in each, combined with a GSB related to the UV–vis
absorption. The final state must be the same in all aggregates. (c)
Comparison of the absorption edge (dashed) and long-lived TA signal
(solid) of monomer AXT following triplet sensitization (green) and
aggregate II. The similarity of shape confirms the assignment of the
long-lived aggregate state to triplets, produced via singlet fission.
Transient absorption
of AXT aggregates. (a) Selected timeslices
from sub-ps TA of II excited at 2.6 eV. The prompt decay of the broad
NIR PIA is the only significant spectral change in the entire measurement
range and reflects internal conversion from the initial 1Bu state. (b) Timeslices from ns TA show continued uniform decay of
the state formed within 3 ps. (c) Integrated decay kinetics from sub-ps
TA reveal instrument-limited decay of the GSB and NIR PIA (solid lines)
to form the final state. (d) Equivalent sub-ps measurement of IV excited
at 2.3 eV, showing similar rapid decay of the initial band in the
NIR and formation of the final state within 3 ps, which (e) uniformly
decays on the μs time scale. (f) Integrated decay kinetics from
sub-ps TA of IV show an instrument-limited internal conversion from
the initial state (thin solid line) similar to II. The slower rise
at 1.94 eV reflects a gradual shift of the crossing point between
GSB and PIA, related to the generation of vibrationally excited ground
states following nonradiative decay of triplet pairs.[21]Triplet identification. (a) Integrated decay
kinetics from all
species, at the peak of PIA, following excitation at 2.3 eV. All aggregates
(solid) show an enhancement of the final state lifetime of 5 orders
of magnitude, relative to the monomer (dashed). (b) Comparison of
the TA signal at 100 ns for all five aggregates reveals the same PIA
signature in each, combined with a GSB related to the UV–vis
absorption. The final state must be the same in all aggregates. (c)
Comparison of the absorption edge (dashed) and long-lived TA signal
(solid) of monomer AXT following triplet sensitization (green) and
aggregate II. The similarity of shape confirms the assignment of the
long-lived aggregate state to triplets, produced via singlet fission.On first inspection the TA results
for IV in Figure 3d–f appear quite different
from those obtained for
aggregate II. However, they reflect essentially the same photophysics.
The most prominent difference is the sharp positive ΔT/T band above 2.0 eV. This signal perfectly
matches the position of the vibronic peaks observed in steady-state
absorption (Figure 1a) and can be assigned
to GSB of the aggregate. As in Figure 3a, an
ultrafast decay from the initial 1Bu state can be inferred
from the instrument-limited loss of the PIA in the NIR along with
a matching rise of PIA in the visible and a slight blue-shift of the
GSB edge. The final state in this aggregate—again formed on
ultrafast time scales—is the same as in aggregate II, namely
triplet excitons.Indeed, all five aggregates form triplets
on ultrafast time scales,
with most spectral evolution complete by 1 ps. In a system such as
aggregated AXT, with no heavy atoms and no significant intersystem
crossing yield in free solution, the only mechanism for such fast
triplet formation is singlet fission. We detect none of the signatures
of 2Ag, such as 2Ag → 1Bu PIA
below 1 eV, or of any other excited state within the ∼120 fs
temporal resolution of this measurement. We thus propose that intermolecular
singlet fission in this polyene system occurs directly from the 1Bu exciton, the same mechanism we observed for intramolecular
singlet fission in poly(3-thienylenevinylene).[21] This claim is confirmed below with sub-30 fs TA.Figure 4 compares the final state observed
in each aggregate following excitation at 2.33 eV. We first highlight
the dramatic enhancement of the final state lifetime upon aggregation,
by roughly 5 orders of magnitude. Only thermal effects[45] or the formation of charged species or triplet
excitons would be expected to yield such long lifetimes. The only
long-lived features are found in the visible spectral region (Figure 4b). The agreement of the PIA bands on the low-energy
side of the spectrum is striking, and the differences at higher energies
can be accounted for as different GSB contributions, related to the
shape of the ground-state absorption spectra. This comparison not
only confirms that the same long-lived species is present in every
sample but also ensures that it is an excited state of the primary
aggregate type observed in UV–vis absorption rather than a
minority population. The close spectral overlap of the PIA bands allows
us to rule out pump-induced thermal modulation, as it is highly unlikely
for this effect to produce the same red-absorbing species in five
widely varied aggregate structures with absorption edges varying by
∼1.5 eV. We can also rule out charge formation, as the characteristic
NIR absorption bands of carotenoid anions and cations are absent in
all cases.[46−49]These considerations already enable an assignment of the terminal
long-lived state to triplet excitons, and for further confirmation
we use the triplet sensitization technique of Sasaki et al.[50] Briefly, a mixed solution of AXT and C60 in toluene was excited at 2.33 eV with the long-delay TA setup.
Within the pump pulse duration, we observe the decay of AXT singlets
and formation of triplet excitons on C60 (Supporting Information, Figure S11). On a hundreds of picoseconds
time scale, the triplet excitons undergo triplet energy transfer to
AXT, resulting in the sharp characteristic PIA of carotenoid triplets
(Figures 4c, green, and S11). Comparison with our long-delay spectra, using only aggregate
II for clarity, shows a similar overall shape. However, the long-lived
signal in aggregates is slightly broader and red-shifted by ∼0.2
eV. A small red-shift for carotenoid triplet absorption in aggregates
or complexes has been previously observed[39,51] and can be partially attributed to the change in dielectric environment
upon aggregation. Moreover, the shift is comparable to that observed
in the ground state absorption edge (dashed lines), which may indicate
that GSB also contributes to the apparent red shift.As for
the spectral broadening, it is actually a consequence of
singlet fission. The same phenomenon has been observed in poly(3-dodecylthienylenevinylene)[21] and in polydiacetylene.[18] In the latter work it was proposed that the initial geminate triplet
pairs still interact following singlet fission, though they are no
longer fully coupled into a singlet state. These interactions perturb
the triplet energy levels, leading to a broadening and further red-shift
of the PIA. The agreement of our results with a similar system[25,26] and the reasonable match between the long-lived spectrum and the
triplet reference are sufficient to conclude that the final state
in all AXT aggregates is triplet excitons.The match of this
triplet PIA across the entire aggregate series
is striking and merits further consideration. We recall that optically
allowed transition varies by ∼1 eV between aggregates I and
V, demonstrating the strong effect of aggregation on the singlet excited
state. On the other hand, the most significant effect on the T1→Tn absorption band in Figure 4 is the mere fact of aggregation: all aggregates share approximately
the same redshift of this band relative to the sensitized monomer
triplet. This result is a likely consequence of the highly localized
nature of carotenoid triplets. Whereas the precise nature of the nearest-neighbor
coupling within the aggregates can strongly influence singlet absorption,
the triplet only reflects bulk-type dielectric effects. On the basis
of this behavior, we can be confident that the energy of the triplet
exciton does not change through aggregation.Regimes of triplet–triplet
annihilation in aggregate II.
(a) Integrated decay kinetics of II following sub-ps excitation at
2.6 eV. The same multiexponential function fits the decay at all fluences,
requiring the recombination process to be entirely geminate. Lifetimes
(0.9, 6, and 49 ps) are not assigned to individual processes but rather
reflect the wide distribution of triplet pair decay rates. (b) Integrated
decay kinetics of II on longer time scales, following ns excitation
at 2.3 eV, show strong fluence dependence indicative of non-geminate
TTA.
Triplet Decay
Though all of the aggregates undergo
the same process of singlet fission, the kinetics in Figure 4a reveal clear differences in the subsequent fate
of the triplets. To better understand this behavior, we begin by evaluating
the dependence of these kinetics on pump fluence in detail for aggregate
II (see Supporting Information, Figures S13 and
S14 for qualitatively similar results for the other aggregates).We first consider the ps-ns regime (Figure 5a), during which the triplet PIA spectrum decays uniformly with at
most a slight narrowing (Figure 3a). The multiexponential
decay we observe on these time scales is far too short for the intrinsic
triplet lifetime. Instead, in agreement with studies of zeaxanthin
aggregates[26,39] we attribute this behavior to
annihilation processes, specifically triplet–triplet annihilation
(TTA). This is a highly efficient process—though some fraction
of the triplets survives out to μs time scales, at least 90%
of the excited population annihilates between 1 ps and 1 ns. At the
same time, this initial TTA regime is completely independent of pump
fluence and must thus correspond to the annihilation of geminate triplet
pairs. These facts enable an important insight into the energetics
of singlet fission in carotenoids.
Figure 5
Regimes of triplet–triplet
annihilation in aggregate II.
(a) Integrated decay kinetics of II following sub-ps excitation at
2.6 eV. The same multiexponential function fits the decay at all fluences,
requiring the recombination process to be entirely geminate. Lifetimes
(0.9, 6, and 49 ps) are not assigned to individual processes but rather
reflect the wide distribution of triplet pair decay rates. (b) Integrated
decay kinetics of II on longer time scales, following ns excitation
at 2.3 eV, show strong fluence dependence indicative of non-geminate
TTA.
According to the conventional
energy scheme 1Bu > 2Ag > 2T1 > T2, only one pathway for TTA
is permitted: T1 + T1 → T2 + S0 → T1 + S0. Such a model
could potentially explain a prompt loss of 50% of the triplet population
through geminate TTA, but any further losses would depend on intrinsically
slow triplet diffusion. This latter process would be strongly dependent
on excitation density, which cannot be reconciled with the fast, fluence-independent
decay observed here. A further consideration is the very nature of
triplets produced through singlet fission. The usual treatment of
TTA assumes a randomized population of triplets, such that pairs of
triplets can couple and annihilate into an overall spin singlet or
spin triplet state. However, the initial triplet population here is
anything but random. The triplet pair produced through fission is
by definition coupled into a spin singlet, so TTA is only possible
back to a singlet state until the coherence is broken by spin–lattice
relaxation, which occurs on longer time scales. Thus, fast geminate
recombination of the type T1 + T1 → T2 + S0 should not be possible, even if it is energetically
favorable.Instead, the only available pathway for geminate
TTA that passes
through another electronic state is T1 + T1 →
S1 (i.e., 2Ag) + S0. This process
would be completely independent of excitation density and could proceed
on a range of time scales, governed by the couplings in the distribution
of triplet pair states formed. In short, this model of TTA very closely
matches the results presented in Figures 5a
and S13 on AXT aggregates. This requires
a reevaluation of the standard energetic scheme in carotenoids. It
is generally accepted that 1Bu > 2Ag >
2T1 > T2, with a relatively small gap between
2Ag and 2T1. However, triplet energies are notoriously
difficult to measure, particularly in the absence of phosphorescence,
and if the T1 energy were even slightly higher, the state
ordering would become 1Bu > 2T1 > 2Ag.On the longer time scales shown in Figure 5b, the relatively few triplets that survive the
initial TTA regime
are stabilized and do not appear to undergo geminate recombination.
Instead, they are free to diffuse and decay with a strong fluence
dependence, a clear indicator of non-geminate TTA. At lower fluences
the final decay still converges well to a single exponential decay
of ∼1.25 μs, which is reasonable as the intrinsic triplet
lifetime, but at the highest excitation density the triplet decay
is distinctly nonexponential over the entire range. It is important
to note here that the fluence behavior is more complicated than in
standard bimolecular recombination, as the ability of the triplets
to annihilate depends not only on the rate of triplet diffusion but
also on the distribution of aggregate sizes, both quantities unknown
but likely to vary across the aggregate series.With this understanding
of TTA in AXT aggregates, we return to
the kinetics in Figure 4a. The fastest initial
decay is observed for the aggregates I and V that exhibit the strongest
intermolecular coupling—as would be anticipated, the triplet
pairs formed by singlet fission are similarly more strongly coupled
and annihilate quickly.[1] Conversely, the
decay over the first 1 ns is slowest in the relatively weakly coupled
aggregate II. The dependence on excitation density and strong variation
in absorption cross-section between aggregates preclude direct comparison
of the longer-time decay kinetics, though all exhibit a similar characteristic
lifetime of order 1 μs.
Ultrafast Triplet Formation
As noted above, the process
of singlet fission identified in Figure 3 is
largely complete within the instrument response of the sub-ps TA experiment.
To fully resolve the triplet formation, we performed sub-30 fs TA
measurements on the full set of aggregates as well as monomeric AXT
in acetone and DMSO. In dilute solution (Figure 6) we find that the monomer reproduces the behavior observed previously
using sub-ps TA, namely direct conversion of 1Bu into a
hot 2Ag state which rapidly cools. The higher time resolution
enables a clean determination of the 1Bu → 2Ag internal conversion time constant, which we find to vary
with solvent from 105 fs in DMSO to 125 fs in acetone with no discernible
intermediate states. It is unclear what environment is most appropriate
for comparison to AXT molecules embedded in (or at the surface of)
aggregates, but this measurement establishes an approximate 100 fs
time scale with which singlet fission must compete to proceed efficiently.
Figure 6
Ultrafast
1Bu → 2Ag internal conversion.
(a) Transient absorption timeslices from sub-30 fs TA on monomeric
AXT in DMSO, showing smooth transition from 1Bu (PIA below
1.5 eV) to 2Ag (PIA above 1.8 eV). No other electronic
state can be identified. Arrows indicate direction of spectral change.
The corresponding decay kinetics (symbols) in (b) DMSO and (c) acetone
can be well described with an exponential time constant (lines) of
105 or 125 fs, respectively.
Ultrafast
1Bu → 2Ag internal conversion.
(a) Transient absorption timeslices from sub-30 fs TA on monomeric
AXT in DMSO, showing smooth transition from 1Bu (PIA below
1.5 eV) to 2Ag (PIA above 1.8 eV). No other electronic
state can be identified. Arrows indicate direction of spectral change.
The corresponding decay kinetics (symbols) in (b) DMSO and (c) acetone
can be well described with an exponential time constant (lines) of
105 or 125 fs, respectively.The results for aggregates II–IV, for which the fission
process can be most clearly distinguished, are presented in Figure 7. Data for aggregates I and V can be found in the Supporting Information. In all cases, the spectra
agree well with the sub-ps TA measurements on the same aggregates.
The initial state in all species has a PIA in the NIR, in the same
region where the 1Bu state absorbs in monomeric AXT. This
band rapidly decays, resulting in the same triplet signature identified
in Figure 4b. To capture the time scale of
this process, the decay kinetics for each aggregate were globally
fitted with a simple biexponential function, revealing two distinct
temporal regimes: a sub-100 fs process that describes the formation
of triplet PIA, and a slower (hundreds of femtoseconds) redshift consistent
with thermalization of the hot triplet pair state. These fits give
a singlet fission time constant of 85, 90, and 65 fs in aggregates
II, III, and IV, respectively, distinctly faster than the ultrafast
1Bu → 2Ag internal conversion detected
in the monomer.
Figure 7
Ultrafast
triplet formation. (a) Sub-30 fs TA measurements of aggregate
II in the visible and NIR spectral regions show a direct transition
from the initial singlet (solid) to triplets, already evident by 150
fs. No other states (such as 2Ag) are observed. Equivalent
measurements on aggregates (b) III and (c) IV reveal similar behavior.
Arrows indicate the direction of the primary spectral changes. (d–f)
Species extracted with a genetic algorithm using a two-state model
agree well with the characteristics of 1Bu and triplet
excitons, and no additional states are needed to describe the data.
(g–i) Integrated decay kinetics for each aggregate type (symbols)
can all be globally fitted with biexponential functions (lines) capturing
the initial singlet fission process and subsequent relaxation of the
triplet pair. The singlet fission time constant varies with aggregate
structure, from 85 and 90 fs for II and III to 65 fs for IV.
To confirm the assignments from these decay
kinetics, the data
were analyzed with a spectral decomposition technique based on a genetic
algorithm.[52] In aggregates II–IV,
the transition was best modeled with only two species (Figure 7d–f) showing the characteristic features
of 1Bu and the triplet described above. We observe singlet
fission directly from 1Bu on time scales consistent with
the raw kinetic fitting and find no evidence of any other excited
states.The rates of triplet formation here are among the fastest
reported
for any intermolecular singlet fission system. This rapid fission
cannot be explained solely by the energetic difference between singlet
and triplet pair states: the triplet energy should not change with
aggregation, while the singlet varies by over 1.2 eV. Using typical
values,[26] we may even expect the singlet
and triplet pair states to be nearly degenerate in aggregate V. The
two weakly coupled aggregates II and III are the slowest, forming
triplets with roughly the same time constant ∼90 fs. Aggregate
IV exhibits even faster singlet fission, which we propose is related
to its stronger intermolecular coupling. Indeed, in the two most strongly
coupled aggregates I and V we are unable to distinguish any state
prior to triplets within the temporal resolution of the measurement,
which was restricted in those systems to ∼70 fs due to scattering
and a strong coherent solvent response.Unlike the initial rate
of TTA, we find the rate of triplet formation
is only weakly dependent on the strength of intermolecular coupling.
Indeed, the mechanism of singlet fission in these aggregates must
be remarkably robust: variation of the band gap over a range of 1.2
eV, with concomitant changes in the energetic driving force for triplet
pair formation, yields fission time constants that span the narrow
range ∼50–100 fs. Even in the most weakly bound aggregates
II and III, where singlet fission is only slightly faster than the
expected 1Bu → 2Ag time scale, we detect
no signs of any other excited states, and we thus consider that this
initial step is highly efficient in all aggregates.The surprising
result that the ultrafast 1Bu →
2Ag internal conversion channel of the monomer is completely
deactivated within the aggregates merits closer consideration. We
note that this internal conversion is generally accepted to proceed
via a conical intersection and is thus driven by nuclear motion.[53] It is conceivable that the same crossing is
approached in the aggregates, with the important distinction that
the strong exciton coupling ensures a delocalized state. The predicted
triplet pair character of 2Ag results in a short-lived
singlet state when it is confined to a single polyene chain, but delocalization
over multiple chromophores may allow sufficient separation between
the constituent triplets to give the state more triplet-like character.
While such a model could explain the early time transient absorption
behavior, it is inconsistent with the energetic structure evident
from the analysis of TTA kinetics. It may nonetheless be instructive
to consider in relation to other possible triplet pair states. We
propose instead that aggregation alters the vibrational landscape
and distorts the 1Bu potential energy surface, such that
a crossing with the triplet pair state is strongly favored over that
with 2Ag. Full clarification of this intriguing behavior
will likely call for both extensive new computational studies of the
electronic structure of coupled polyenes and a detailed exploration
of vibronic coupling in the aggregates.[54]Ultrafast
triplet formation. (a) Sub-30 fs TA measurements of aggregate
II in the visible and NIR spectral regions show a direct transition
from the initial singlet (solid) to triplets, already evident by 150
fs. No other states (such as 2Ag) are observed. Equivalent
measurements on aggregates (b) III and (c) IV reveal similar behavior.
Arrows indicate the direction of the primary spectral changes. (d–f)
Species extracted with a genetic algorithm using a two-state model
agree well with the characteristics of 1Bu and triplet
excitons, and no additional states are needed to describe the data.
(g–i) Integrated decay kinetics for each aggregate type (symbols)
can all be globally fitted with biexponential functions (lines) capturing
the initial singlet fission process and subsequent relaxation of the
triplet pair. The singlet fission time constant varies with aggregate
structure, from 85 and 90 fs for II and III to 65 fs for IV.
Conclusions
We
have isolated a system of five distinct aggregates of astaxanthin,
allowing adjustment of the intermolecular coupling while maintaining
the same monomer chemical and electronic structure. Our transient
absorption measurements demonstrated that ultrafast singlet fission
occurs in all aggregate types. Sub-ps TA data revealed the presence
of only two excitonic states—the bright 1Bu singlet
exciton and the triplet produced via singlet fission—suggesting
a mechanism of singlet fission directly from 1Bu rather
than via 2Ag. This model is consistent with our previous
high-time-resolution measurements of intramolecular singlet fission
in polyenes,[21] and also agrees with the
proposal of Wang et al.[25,26] based on studies of
zeaxanthin aggregates using a lower time resolution. We confirmed
this two-state model with sub-30 fs TA, demonstrating for the first
time in a polyene system that intermolecular singlet fission proceeds
directly from the initial 1Bu state. Furthermore, the purely
geminate TTA dynamics immediately following singlet fission indicate
that the triplet pair energy is in fact greater than that of 2Ag, which instead functions merely as an efficient decay pathway
back to a vibrationally excited ground state. In other words, the
mechanisms of singlet fission and subsequent TTA in polyenes are strikingly
similar, whether the fission event is intramolecular like in poly(3-dodecylthienylenevinylene)[21] or intermolecular like in AXT aggregates. These
findings raise important questions about the role of low-lying 2Ag states. The existence of such a state appears to be a useful
sign of the ability to undergo singlet fission, but in polymers and
aggregates the state not only does not participate in triplet formation
but actually harms the overall yield.Further theoretical work
is required to determine how the triplet
pair state forms directly from 1Bu, a process beyond the
scope of current models. Turning to recent high-level calculations
of polyene excited states, we note that another triplet pair state,
1Bu–, is predicted to lie just below
the initial allowed 1Bu transition.[55] The coupling between these states would likely be strong,
with consequently fast relaxation into the triplet pair. Comparison
with the more established polyacenes sheds some light onto the mechanism
of singlet fission discussed here. In the most strongly coupled acenes
(pentacene and TIPS-pentacene), singlet fission is described as adiabatic,
with a rate independent of intermolecular coupling strength. For the
majority of the more weakly coupled acenes, however, triplet formation
appears to be highly dependent on intermolecular coupling.[15] By contrast, in astaxanthin similar sub-100
fs singlet fission kinetics are observed in strongly (I, V) and weakly
(II, III) coupled systems with large (I) and small (V) energetic driving
force. This suggests that singlet fission remains in the adiabatic
regime in all aggregates and may reflect a unique property of singlet
fission in polyenes. This is perhaps not surprising given the widely
accepted role of conical intersections in carotenoid photophysics,
and it will be important to investigate how vibrational dynamics are
implicated in singlet fission within the aggregates. A recent study
of TIPS-pentacene, for example, has revealed that ultrafast triplet
formation is mediated by vibronic coupling between S1 and
the triplet pair state,[54] and a similar
mechanism may apply here.Our results also allow important insight
into the processes following
triplet generation. The observation of two distinct regimes of TTA—fast
geminate and slow bimolecular—highlights the unique quantum
mechanical properties of triplet pairs generated through singlet fission,
which are initially entangled into an overall singlet state. The conversion
from geminate to bimolecular recombination reflects a combination
of the time scales for triplet pair separation and de-coherence and
triplet diffusion, affording a window to study these processes with
multipulse techniques or under applied fields and build a model of
how and why triplet pairs break apart. More broadly, this system of
carotenoid aggregates can serve as a platform to investigate TTA and
how it can be controlled through material properties, which is of
great interest in the context of triplet-based light-emitting diodes.[56] An understanding of such annihilation processes
and their interrelation with intermolecular coupling and triplet generation
will be essential to realize the full potential of singlet fission
in solar energy harvesting.
Authors: Shane R Yost; Jiye Lee; Mark W B Wilson; Tony Wu; David P McMahon; Rebecca R Parkhurst; Nicholas J Thompson; Daniel N Congreve; Akshay Rao; Kerr Johnson; Matthew Y Sfeir; Moungi G Bawendi; Timothy M Swager; Richard H Friend; Marc A Baldo; Troy Van Voorhis Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Andrew J Musser; Mohammed Al-Hashimi; Margherita Maiuri; Daniele Brida; Martin Heeney; Giulio Cerullo; Richard H Friend; Jenny Clark Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: C C Gradinaru; J T Kennis; E Papagiannakis; I H van Stokkum; R J Cogdell; G R Fleming; R A Niederman; R van Grondelle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-02-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Giuditta Bartalucci; Stuart Fisher; John R Helliwell; Madeleine Helliwell; Synnøve Liaaen-Jensen; John E Warren; James Wilkinson Journal: Acta Crystallogr B Date: 2009-03-16
Authors: Emmanouil Papagiannakis; Ivo H M van Stokkum; Mikas Vengris; Richard J Cogdell; Rienk van Grondelle; Delmar S Larsen Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2006-03-23 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Eric A Margulies; Claire E Miller; Yilei Wu; Lin Ma; George C Schatz; Ryan M Young; Michael R Wasielewski Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Elliot J Taffet; Francesca Fassioli; Zi S D Toa; David Beljonne; Gregory D Scholes Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Daphné Lubert-Perquel; Enrico Salvadori; Matthew Dyson; Paul N Stavrinou; Riccardo Montis; Hiroki Nagashima; Yasuhiro Kobori; Sandrine Heutz; Christopher W M Kay Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Chaw Keong Yong; Andrew J Musser; Sam L Bayliss; Steven Lukman; Hiroyuki Tamura; Olga Bubnova; Rawad K Hallani; Aurélie Meneau; Roland Resel; Munetaka Maruyama; Shu Hotta; Laura M Herz; David Beljonne; John E Anthony; Jenny Clark; Henning Sirringhaus Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Tobias Ullrich; Piermaria Pinter; Julian Messelberger; Philipp Haines; Ramandeep Kaur; Max M Hansmann; Dominik Munz; Dirk M Guldi Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Bettina S Basel; Johannes Zirzlmeier; Constantin Hetzer; Brian T Phelan; Matthew D Krzyaniak; S Rajagopala Reddy; Pedro B Coto; Noah E Horwitz; Ryan M Young; Fraser J White; Frank Hampel; Timothy Clark; Michael Thoss; Rik R Tykwinski; Michael R Wasielewski; Dirk M Guldi Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 14.919