Artem A Bakulin1, Carlos Silva2, Eleonora Vella2. 1. Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge , Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom. 2. Département de physique & Regroupement québécois sur les matériaux de pointe, Université de Montréal , C.P. 6128, Succursale centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada.
Abstract
While ultrafast spectroscopy with photocurrent detection was almost unknown before 2012, in the last 3 years, a number of research groups from different fields have independently developed ultrafast electric probe approaches and reported promising pilot studies. Here, we discuss these recent advances and provide our perspective on how photocurrent detection successfully overcomes many limitations of all-optical methods, which makes it a technique of choice when device photophysics is concerned. We also highlight compelling existing problems and research questions and suggest ways for further development, outlining the potential breakthroughs to be expected in the near future using photocurrent ultrafast optical probes.
While ultrafast spectroscopy with photocurrent detection was almost unknown before 2012, in the last 3 years, a number of research groups from different fields have independently developed ultrafast electric probe approaches and reported promising pilot studies. Here, we discuss these recent advances and provide our perspective on how photocurrent detection successfully overcomes many limitations of all-optical methods, which makes it a technique of choice when device photophysics is concerned. We also highlight compelling existing problems and research questions and suggest ways for further development, outlining the potential breakthroughs to be expected in the near future using photocurrent ultrafast optical probes.
Ultrafast transient
absorption (TA) methods and their multidimensional extensions are
currently well-developed approaches to study electronic and structural
dynamics of optoelectronic nanosystems like organic, organic–inorganic
hybrid or quantum dot photovoltaic devices, biological light conversion
systems, or electrochemical cells. Some successful examples include
elucidation of charge separation and transport pathways in organic
materials,[1−6] observation of structural[7,8] and vibrational[9] dynamics, as well as elucidation of correlation
of multiple excited states and coherent phenomena involved.[10,11] The essence of the approach comes down to using a sequence of two
or more subpicosecond optical pulses. First, pump pulse(s) bring the
system into the excited state, leading to the modulation of the system’s
optical properties. These photoinduced changes affect the probe pulse(s)
intensity as they pass through the sample. Therefore, the detection
of the outcoupled probe field as a function of delay between pump
and probe pulses provides an opportunity to resolve the dynamics of
the optoelectronic system in time.Despite the long history
of development and a broad choice of particular technique modifications,
most varieties of TA methods suffer from a range of limitations when
applied to optoelectronic systems and devices:At low excitation pulse energies,
the photoinduced modulation in optical properties can be small and
insufficient to provide a detectable variation in optical density.
To tackle this problem, high pump intensities are usually used to
boost the signal, which typically scales linearly with the excitation
intensity. However, this may cause photodegradation. It was also proven
that high photon fluxes are unsuitable for some optoelectronic materials
and devices that should be studied at “working condition”
illumination.[12,13] Finally, multistep absorption
to higher-lying states at moderate fluence may display apparent linear
intensity behavior but lead to unexpected population products.[14]The observed variations of optical properties are broad and featureless
and can be similar for different photoexcited states, complicating
the interpretation of the results. Also, the optical cross sections
of some transition can be much weaker compared to the others, making
the signatures of the most important processes (for example, charge
dynamics that determine device performance) hidden behind other trivial
but strong spectroscopic responses.[15]The detection scheme
in any TA technique requires outcoupling of probe light. This makes
these methods of limited use for samples with high optical density
in the probe region and for certain types of devices. In addition,
highly scattered samples are inaccessible for one-color TA-type experiments
unless for sophisticated techniques like phase cycling[16] or double modulation.[17]Due to the all-optical
detection nature, the spatial resolution of TA methods is limited
by the size of the probe beam. Therefore, even in optical microscopy
configurations, the typical dimension of resolved features cannot
reach below a few hundred nanometers, which may be insufficient for
nanomaterial characterization.TA spectroscopy,
therefore, is an effective and well-developed tool to address charge
dynamics in model systems like solutions or homogeneous films. However,
all of the restrictions mentioned above make this method of limited
use for addressing time-resolved dynamics in optoelectronic devices
and functional systems at working conditions.In this
Perspective, we review recent developments in device-based ultrafast
spectroscopies with photocurrent (PC) detection (Figure ). In this method, a sequence
of short optical pulses first brings the system to the excited state
and then modulates the excited-state dynamics, while the effect of
modulation is observed through the device performance. Though this
approach was not widely used before 2012, a number of research groups
from different fields have independently developed electric probe
schemes and reported promising pilot studies in the last 3 years.
Here, we show that the ultrafast spectroscopy with PC detection successfully
overcomes the limitations of all-optical methods mentioned above and
that it becomes a technique of choice when (nano)devices are concerned.
Our paper also reviews existing problems on the way to further development
and outlines the potential breakthroughs to be achieved in the near
future.
Figure 1
Concept of the ultrafast experiment with PC detection. The pump pulses
bring the system to the excited state, and the push pulses modulate
the excited-state dynamics. The detection is done by observing the
effect of the push on the device performance.
Concept of the ultrafast experiment with PC detection. The pump pulses
bring the system to the excited state, and the push pulses modulate
the excited-state dynamics. The detection is done by observing the
effect of the push on the device performance.Toward Ultrafast PC Spectroscopy. A promising
alternative to all-optical methods in application to optoelectronic
devices can be hybrid spectroscopic methods with electrical detection.
The simplest and most widely used example of this approach is PC excitation
spectroscopy. In this technique, an actual optoelectronic device is
illuminated by a continuous-wave (CW), tunable, monochromatic light
source, and the produced PC is measured as a function of photon energy.
Alternatively, a broad-band interferometric realization of this technique
can be used.[18] PC spectroscopy is widely
used to study the nature of photoexcitations in semiconductors. From
an application point of view, it is an essential technique to unravel
the charge generation process for the optimization of solar cells
based on novel materials.[19] It is particularly
useful for systems where photocarriers are not produced directly by
interband transitions but are mediated by precursor states such as
excitons in quantum-confined or molecular semiconductors. PC detection
directly probes those states via their excitation spectral line shapes.[18] Being purely absorption-sensitive, PC spectroscopy
easily eliminates scattering and reflection artifacts, which gives
it an outstanding dynamic range, sufficient for the identification
of very low concentrations of defect states and intermolecular interactions.
The main limitation of the conventional PC spectroscopy is that it
is a steady-state technique incapable of addressing and resolving
in time the dynamics of the excited states.To our knowledge,
the first successful attempt to resolve excited-state electronic dynamics
in molecular systems using PC detection was reported in 1981 by Lukin
and co-workers.[20] They used (Figure a) a combination of two laser
sources to identify an intermediate state responsible for the PC generation
after anthracene ionization in an electrochemical device. Though Lukin
et al. used two CW light sources, the lifetime of the intermediate
state formed after the illumination with a 347 nm laser (trapped electron
in solution) was sufficiently long to allow its sequential re-excitation
by a 694 nm source, leading to a very substantial (40 times) increase
in PC. The application area for the developed two-color CW PC spectroscopy
was limited to the systems with a very long lived intermediate excited
states, and this method did not attract broad interest despite its
clear potential.
Figure 2
Early two-color PC spectroscopy studies. (a) The setup
for two-color PC spectroscopy on electrochemical devices. Reproduced
from ref (20) with
permission, Elsevier, 2015. Note the elegant stability-control solution
with a reference cell. (b) Comparison between TA, two-pulse photoluminescence,
and 2PPC measurements from ref (22) with permission, APS, 2015.
Early two-color PC spectroscopy studies. (a) The setup
for two-color PC spectroscopy on electrochemical devices. Reproduced
from ref (20) with
permission, Elsevier, 2015. Note the elegant stability-control solution
with a reference cell. (b) Comparison between TA, two-pulse photoluminescence,
and 2PPC measurements from ref (22) with permission, APS, 2015.To elucidate the dynamics of intermediate states with shorter
lifetimes, a pulsed modification of the technique was developed.[21] For simplicity, we will from now on address
this technique as the two-pulse PC (2PPC) method. In a 2PPC experiment,
an optoelectronic device is illuminated by a sequence of two so-called
pump and push laser pulses interacting with the active material in
the device. The result of these interactions is detected by observing
the variations in the current flow through the device as a function
of time delay between the pump and push and their spectra. 2PPC combines
the sensitivity and device relevance of electronic methods with the
excitation selectivity and ultrafast time resolution of optical techniques.Later, Frankevich et al.[23] exploited
advances in solid-state ultrafast lasers and applied ultrafast 2PPC
techniques to investigate charge dynamics in organic nanodevices.
This pioneering study featured subpicosecond time resolution and discovered
the existence of precursor states for the photocarrier formation in
organic semiconductors. The development has triggered substantial
interest and inspired more detailed work from the Feldman group.[22] These studies were the first to compare different
ultrafast techniques including TA, 2PPC, and two-pulse photoluminescence
(Figure b). As seen
from the figure, even if all of above measurements are performed on
the same device with identical pulses, the observed kinetics are similar
for TA and photoluminescence as those reflect purely exciton dynamics
but are different for the 2PPC response. This reveales that 2PPC is
sensitive to a subensemble of excited states particularly critical
for efficient device performance.[20] Despite
the initial success, the visible push realizations of the 2PPC method
used by Frankevich et al. and Muller et al. have not acquired wide
recognition and application. We believe the main reason behind this
was that visible push pulses were used in these techniques, which
brings several issues for the interpretation of data. Primarily, the
high (1–2 eV) photon energy of visible push pulses is sufficient
to generate charge carriers in organic semiconductors through both
sub- and above-gap states, which leads to high background currents.
Furthermore, such strong visible push pulses strongly perturb the
excited-state dynamics. Both factors complicated the interpretation
of data and limited the use of the technique.2PPC Spectroscopy
with an IR Push Pulse. The limitation of using high-energy
push photons in 2PPC methods was overcome with an IR push pulse that
is not resonant with the absorption of the system in the ground state.[24] Gentle and targeted IR re-excitation allowed
application of this technique to study charge separation and charge
trapping dynamics in organic and hybrid optoelectronic systems. Initially,
IR 2PPC was applied to identify loss channels in organic photovoltaic
cells by switching optically the electronic states of the molecules.[24−26] The 2PPC kinetics presented in Figure a reflect the probability to enhance the
dissociation of a bound interfacial charge-transfer state using the
energy from an additional IR photon.[24] This
study found that for a range of organic photovoltaic systems, charge-transfer
state formation is the efficiency-limiting step. It also demonstrated
that the dissociation of bound carriers requires a transition from
a local polaronic level to a delocalized “band” state,
which can be induced by a ∼0.5 eV photon. The opportunities
that this new method provided have been applied to different material
systems, including multicomponent organic photocells,[27] oxide-based hybrid optoelectronic devices,[28,29] and colloidal quantum dot p–i–n diodes.[30]
Figure 3
(a) 2PPC
transients reflecting the recombination dynamics of bound electron–hole
states in a range of organic photovoltaic devices, adapted from ref (24) with permission, AAAS,
2015. (b) Frequency-resolved effect of IR irradiation on the photoconductivity
of the pentacene molecular crystal. Vibrational (narrow) and electronic
(broad) response are observed. A 30 ps time delay was set between
the visible and IR pulses. Adapted from ref (31) with permission, Nature
Publishing Group, 2015.
The application of IR push pulses potentially
provides an opportunity to access vibrational modes and their coupling
to electronic dynamics. Using the 2PPC approach, it has recently been
demonstrated experimentally that the performance of an organic optoelectronic
system can be controlled by selectively exciting vibrational modes
of the molecules involved in charge transport using a pentacene/C60 photoresistor as a model system.[31] When addressing vibronic phenomena, a selective excitation of different
vibrational modes is required. This can be achieved using narrow-band
IR pulses[32,33] at the expense of time resolution or by
applying an ultrafast interferometry approach,[34,35] which allows for precise control over the time/frequency domain
structure of the IR optical pulses. The latter approach was used in
the 2PPC study, where an interferometric sequence of two ultrafast
mid-IR laser pulses created a coherent superposition of molecular
vibrational motions inside of the active layer of a device and then
vibrational excitation was correlated with the device performance.
Importantly, this interferometric approach combines sufficient <10
cm–1 frequency resolution to identify vibrational
modes with a 100 fs time resolution despite using the broad-band IR
push spectrum. In fact, a spectral bandwidth of at least 300 cm–1 is essential for keeping the ultrafast (sub-100 fs)
time resolution needed for observation of nuclear and electronic dynamics.When the PC signal is resolved as a function of the push photon
energy, two different types of responses can be identified (Figure b). One is a broad
response, which has a weak dependence on the IR photon energy. This
component is associated with a low-energy polaronic transition,[4] and the effect of IR excitation is probably similar
to one observed for charge-transfer states in organic photovoltaic
devices.[24] At the same time, a narrow-band
response is observed only at certain push photon frequencies, for
example, ∼1300 or ∼1445 cm–1. These
frequencies correspond to the vibrational modes of the studied organic
semiconductor (pentacene). This indicates that the observed increase
in PC originates from the coupling between vibrational and electronic
degrees of freedom, the so-called vibronic phenomena. Both the experiment
and theoretical calculations demonstrate that different nonequilibrium
geometries and atomic motions have dissimilar effects on the charge
dynamics. For example, the vibrations along the long axis of pentacene
molecules (e.g., ∼1445 cm–1 mode) lead to
a larger increase in the charge-hopping rate than the molecular motions
along the short axis (e.g., 1300 cm–1 mode). Such
mode-selective “vibrational control” of charge dynamics
opens a number of new opportunities, including utilization of vibronic
phenomena for ultrafast switching of organic devices and identification
of charge-transport mechanisms and pathways in (bio)molecular junctions.(a) 2PPC
transients reflecting the recombination dynamics of bound electron–hole
states in a range of organic photovoltaic devices, adapted from ref (24) with permission, AAAS,
2015. (b) Frequency-resolved effect of IR irradiation on the photoconductivity
of the pentacene molecular crystal. Vibrational (narrow) and electronic
(broad) response are observed. A 30 ps time delay was set between
the visible and IR pulses. Adapted from ref (31) with permission, Nature
Publishing Group, 2015.2DPC Spectroscopy. 2D electronic spectroscopies
are the extensions of visible-region TA methods that permit identification
of homogeneous and inhomogeneous spectral line shape contributions
and can reveal microscopic interchromophore couplings. In a 2D spectroscopic
measurement, the response of a system driven by multiple electromagnetic
fields is recorded in a multidimensional frequency or time space.
This involves exciting the sample with a sequence of phased ultrafast
laser pulses, typically three or four depending on the adopted geometry,
and picking up the nonlinear signal with the appropriate phase relationship.
In the context of photocarrier generation dynamics, the potential
to identify interstate couplings is key to investigate energy- and
charge-transfer phenomena that eventually lead to photoconversion.
Because of this, coherent optical spectroscopy has seen intensive
development during the past decade, shedding key insights on a wide
variety of phenomena, such as energy- and electron-transfer dynamics
in photosyntetic systems,[36−38] in addressing local conformations
of nucleotides in DNA constructs,[39] in
excited-state energy transfer of exciton-coupled molecular dimers
in biological membranes,[40,41] in coherent response
of the optically created excitations in semiconductors and semiconductor
nanostructures,[42−44] in probing excitons in molecular dimers and aggregates,[45−49] and finally multipolariton correlations in inorganic–semiconductor
optical microcavities,[50] just to give a
few examples of note.Experimentally, 2D spectroscopy is most
commonly implemented using a noncollinear geometry of the excitation
beams.[46,51−53] Within this approach,
three noncollinear laser pulses interact with the sample, inducing
a third-order polarization, which radiates in a phase-matched direction,
with the amplitude and phase of that radiation detected by means of
spectral interferometry with a fourth replica pulse (heterodyne detection).[54]As PC detection does not require outcoupling
and spatially separating light pulses, a different experimental scheme
has been recently implemented, based on four collinear femtosecond
pulses and acousto-optic phase modulation.[55] The first pulse sets the system in a coherent nonequilibrium superposition
of states. The second pulse converts this superposition to a population
in the excited state, which keeps the phase of the superposition state.
The third pulse generates again a coherent superposition of states,
which the fourth pulse converts to an observable fourth-order population.
The signal being measured might, then, be considered as proportional
to this excited-state fourth-order population. This collinear experimental
approach was developed by Marcus and co-workers to investigate the
nonlinear optical response of fluorescent systems like atomic Rb vapor.[55] Recently, the technique was extended by Nardin
et al. to detect PC instead of the luminescence in GaAs quantum wells
produced for 2D electron–gas studies,[56] followed by Karki et al. to address carrier multiplication processes
in PbS solar cells.[57] This modification
makes the technique particularly valuable for the investigation of
charge carrier generation dynamics in photocells because it offers
direct access to the physical quantity of interest, that is, PC, at
the operating regime of the devices.One advantage of the collinear
approach with PC detection comes from the employment of acousto-optic
modulation to achieve the phase-locking condition of the four excitation
pulses, with a pulse sequence depicted in Figure a. The phase modulation scheme determines
a PC signal evolving in time at specific frequencies, thus allowing
one to isolate the fourth-order population contribution to the overall
signal by phase-sensitive detection. Each measurement, obtained by
scanning the time variables t21 and t43 (see Figure a for a definition of these interpulse delay times),
simultaneously produces four maps: the in-phase and the in-quadrature
ones for the rephasing and nonrephasing frequencies.[58] The maps so obtained in the time domain are, finally, converted
in the energy domain by Fourier-transforming the time variables t21 and t43 (see Figure a for a definition
of these interpulse delay times) and recorded as a function of the
population time, t32. It is worth noting
that, in contrast to the partitioning of resonant dispersive and absorptive
features between the real and imaginary parts of the linear optical
response, the rephasing and nonrephasing spectra contain mixed absorptive
and dispersive contributions.
Figure 4
(a) Schematic of the pulse sequence used in
a 2DPC experiment. (b–e) Reproduced from ref (57) with permission, Nature
Publishing Group, 2015. The real part of the 2D total correlation
spectra (that is, the sum of the rephasing and nonrephasing signals)
as measured by (b) PC on a PbS colloidal quantum dot photocell and
(c) by photoluminescence on a PbS colloidal suspension. The qualitative
forms of the 2D line shape in each case reproduced from calculations
are reported in (d) and (e).
(a) Schematic of the pulse sequence used in
a 2DPC experiment. (b–e) Reproduced from ref (57) with permission, Nature
Publishing Group, 2015. The real part of the 2D total correlation
spectra (that is, the sum of the rephasing and nonrephasing signals)
as measured by (b) PC on a PbS colloidal quantum dot photocell and
(c) by photoluminescence on a PbS colloidal suspension. The qualitative
forms of the 2D line shape in each case reproduced from calculations
are reported in (d) and (e).The work by Karki et al., which addressed carrier multiplication
processes in solar cells based on colloidal semiconductor quantum
dots,[57] demonstrated
a subpicosecond evolution of the line shape of the 2DPC-detected spectra
from absorptive to dispersive character, interpreted as a time-dependent
shift of the resonant transition energies during exciton multiplication.
The specific sensitivity accessible through directly probing the PC
is illustrated in Figure , which compares the components of 2D total correlation spectra
as measured by both PC and fluorescence detection.[57] The PC data were acquired on the photocell, whereas the
photoluminescence spectra were measured on a colloidal suspension
sample under the same excitation conditions. As is evident, the two
probes provide remarkably different spectra. In particular, the PC-detected
spectrum shows a dispersive line shape, whereas the fluorescence detected
one exhibits primarily absorptive features. It was speculated[57] that the observed responses are different because
the multiple excitons in quantum dots do not contribute efficiently
to luminescence due to their rapid nonradiative Auger recombination.
On the other hand, in the photocell, the electron–hole pairs
in the multiple exciton states separate within a few picoseconds,
thus contributing to a significant PC quantum yield. The results reported
by Karki et al. provide an eloquent example of how different final
observables, in that case, photoluminescence and PC, provide insights
on the dynamics through the different excited-state pathways in optoelectronic
materials and devices.Another example of implementing PC detection
in 2D coherent techniques probes a photovoltaic device based on the
benchmark polymer–fullerene blend PCDTBT:PCBM.[59]Figure a displays J–V curves measured
under solar illumination and under pulsed femtosecond excitation.
In particular, the latter curve was acquired under the same excitation
conditions as the 2D maps shown in Figure b–e. The comparison reported in Figure a illustrates yet
another relevant advantage of the multidimensional PC-detected spectroscopy
over TA methods; this PC-detected variant of 2D spectroscopy probes
the photocarrier generation process in photovoltaic devices under
actual working conditions.
Figure 5
(a) J–V curve on an organic photovoltaic device under pulsed femtosecond
excitation and under illumination with a solar simulator. 2DPC spectra
on the same device: (b,c) rephasing signal, (d,e) nonrephasing signal.
Reproduced from ref (59).
(a) J–V curve on an organic photovoltaic device under pulsed femtosecond
excitation and under illumination with a solar simulator. 2DPC spectra
on the same device: (b,c) rephasing signal, (d,e) nonrephasing signal.
Reproduced from ref (59).Figure shows the PC-detected 2D real and imaginary
spectra on this photocell; rephasing (Figure b,c) and nonrephasing spectra (Figure d,e) were acquired simultaneously
using a two-channel lock-in amplifier. It highlights a powerful feature
of the application of PC detection in the context of 2D coherence
spectroscopies, which measure correlation spectra related to the full
complex nonlinear permittivity function, composed of absorptive and
dispersive contributions, in the PC excitation spectrum. This is an
important aspect to evaluate the evolution of charged photoexcitations
in excitonic solar cells; the details of the photocarrier production
dynamics are contained in the complex permittivity function, as underlined
eloquently by the work of Karki et al.[57] These data represent, to the best of our knowledge, the first attempt
to measure 2DPC spectra on an organic-based photocell. Beyond the
field of photovoltaic devices based on novel materials, 2DPC might
also be relevant in the study of single nanostructures where PCs have
already been reported.[60,61] Moreover, this technique could
be particularly helpful in the investigation of polariton many-body
correlations in inorganic quantum well Fabry–Pérot microcavities,
where electrodes can be applied and PC easily detected.Ultrafast PC Spectroscopy down to the Single-Molecule Level. An important advantage of electrical methods is their outstanding
sensitivity and capacity to probe local phenomena. One well-established
example of electrical spatially sensitive methods is scanning tunneling
microscopy (STM; see Figure ), which uses current detection to observe objects as small
as single atoms or organic molecules. Such sensitivity is hardly achievable
by all-optical methods due to the complexities with overcoming the
optical diffraction limit, relatively low absorption cross section,
and photobleaching. At the same time, single molecules can be stable
enough to conduct well-detectable currents for long periods of time,
providing large statistics and high accuracy of measured values. Unfortunately,
conventional STM-type techniques are not suitable for observing fast
(submicrosecond) dynamics of nanosystems due to the limitations of
electrical circuits. The accessible time window is usually defined
by the time constants of current injection and the response time of
electric amplifiers.[62,63] To resolve this limitation, ultrafast
optical pulses can be used to modulate the current flow. There have
already been a number of successful developments along this path.
Femtosecond lasers were used to gate the STM tip,[64] to switch the transmission lines,[65] or to modulate the tunneling current by the tip and/or sample electronic
excitation,[66] which allowed, in some exceptional
cases, one to reach a few-picoseconds dynamics regime. Unfortunately,
the outlined approaches have not yet become a robust solution due
to the complexity of the experimental approach.
Figure 6
(a,b) The concept of
a THz ultrafast tunneling microscope. (c) A representative time-resolved
tunneling transient provide by such a microscope, which features subpicosecond
time and 2 nm spatial resolution. Reproduced from ref (67) with permission, Nature
Publishing Group, 2015.
(a,b) The concept of
a THz ultrafast tunneling microscope. (c) A representative time-resolved
tunneling transient provide by such a microscope, which features subpicosecond
time and 2 nm spatial resolution. Reproduced from ref (67) with permission, Nature
Publishing Group, 2015.An interesting development for ultrafast STM was recently
proposed by Cocker and co-workers using THz spectroscopy instrumentation.[67] In their approach, the STM junction bias was
modulated by irradiating the scanning probe tip with subpicosecond
terahertz pulses. This modulation introduced strong tunneling current
pulses in a STM only for the period of THz pulse transiting the tip
area, therefore gating the nanojunction between the tip and the sample
in different moments of time. When combined with an additional, optical
“dynamics trigger” pulse, the terahertz STM provided
simultaneous <500 fs time resolution and nanometer (2 nm) imaging
resolution under ambient laboratory conditions, which was sufficient,
for example, to image ultrafast carrier capture into a single InAs
quantum dot. We note that, despite the very different optical range
and current generation mechanism, the concept of THz STM is quite
similar to the 2PPC/2DPC described above. All of the methods first
use visible pump pulse(s) to create the excited state of interest,
and then, the THz or vis/IR “push” samples the dynamics
of the excited states after a controllable delay time. The practical
difference comes from the fact that the “reference” current
is generated by visible light in 2PPC and by THz light in THz STM,
which implies that different modulation schemes for lock-in detection
should be employed.The idea of using tunneling current is not limited to THz modulation
and the STM approach. There is ongoing progress in applying electric
detection and multipulse techniques to study different types of molecular
junctions, down to the single-molecule level,[68] or any other type of system that is conductive on the nanoscale.
The above-mentioned studies illustrate the strength of ultrafast spectroscopy
with PC detection when individual nanodimension systems or devices
are concerned. This approach provides a unique opportunity to combine
the outstanding sensitivity of electrical measurements with unprecedented
time resolution of ultrafast optical techniques.Information
Provided by PC versus Optical Detection. On the basis of
the existing studies, it is possible to make a few general conclusions
about the type of responses that can be observed in ultrafast PC detection
spectroscopies (Figure ). First, only the processes affecting charge generation can be observed
using PC detection. This allows neglect of many “background”
responses, such as coherent artifacts, scattering, and photochromic
effects, narrowing down the observable to the dynamics of interest.
Second, the stimulated emission (SE) and ground-state bleach (GSB)
responses are very observable with ultrafast PC methods. Particularly,
SE signals can be interpreted in a similar way as they are in TA data,
just by inverting the sign of the response.[20] Indeed, whereas the all-optical methods register the increase of
transmitted light, the PC methods should register the drop in the
device output as fewer excited states are formed in the sample. Third,
the origins of photoinduced absorption (PIA) responses are quite different
in TA and PC. As the lifetime of higher-lying excited states in most
optoelectronic materials is very short, the effect of the system dynamics
due to the additional absorbed photon is determined by the thermalization
pathway to the first excited state. If after the push pulse the system
repopulates back the same state that it was excited from, no changes
will be observed in the long-term charge dynamics and in the PC output.
However, if the push pulse leads to a different or modified excited
state, the charge dynamics are likely to be affected, and the device
performance will vary. Both negative and positive PIA responses have
been observed in ultrafast PC experiments. While the former are usually
indicative of releasing a bound charge carrier, the latter are a sign
of enhanced bimolecular processes like exciton–exciton annihilation
or recombination.[24] From this perspective,
the positive PIA signals provide the most valuable information for
the development of the optoelectronic devices as they help to identify
bottleneck states in the excited-state dynamics. Positive PC signals
present direct evidence that the device performance can be improved
if additional energy is given to the system at the certain moments
of time, which can serve as an efficient feedback parameter for device
optimization.Conclusions and Perspective for the Future. PC detection schemes in ultrafast optical probes have a distinct
advantage in terms of sensitivity compared to optical probe techniques.
Namely, when photocarriers are generated efficiently, this detection
scheme has the potential to detect every photoexcitation event. This
is certainly the case in semiconductor nanostructures[56] but is also the case in molecular systems that are designed
for applications in photodetectors and solar cells. PC detection opens the
door for implementations that are simply not possible using optical
detection schemes, such as single-molecule nonlinear optical probes
under low-intensity illumination conditions representative of solar
light. For example, we envision the development of single-molecule
multidimensional spectroscopy that exploits the extraordinarily sensitivity
of scanning probe techniques.The opportunities presented by
PC detection schemes will clearly facilitate the investigation of
photosynthetic processes in natural systems with detail that goes
beyond what is achievable with all-optical nonlinear probes such as
four-wave mixing implementations of multidimensional spectroscopies.
This is because a key product of the photosynthetic reaction—photocharge—can
be isolated and interrogated. We highlight recent breakthroughs in
processing of native pigment proteins in device architectures that
probe PC. For example, Friese et al. have recently exploited the high
quantum efficiency of photosynthetic pigment proteins by incorporating
them directly in bioelectronic devices.[69] These consist of bacterial reaction centers and light-harvesting-1
complexes, self-assembled on an electrochemically roughened silver
electrode. Due to enhanced light absorption facilitated by moderate
plasmonic effects from the rough surface, this biohybrid nanostructured
architecture displays a peak PC of >165 μA cm–2, solely derived from the photosynthetic material, under 1 sun illumination,
and up to 3-fold higher currents under more intense illumination.[69] We anticipate that nonincremental progress in
the understanding of natural light-harvesting mechanisms in diverse
native protein environments will be achieved as a result of the opportunities
presented by ultrafast PC probes.Finally, the opportunity to
examine the evolution of the complex permittivity function via PC
probes in multidimensional excitation techniques promises breakthroughs
in the understanding of photocarrier generation in state-of-the-art
thin-film solar cells, such as emerging perovskite technologies. Measurement
of this optical response over ultrafast time scales provides a key
window into the materials physics among the most relevant for solar
energy conversion: how are charges that can do work generated by solar
light? Our perspective is that PC-detected optical probes will play
a central role in unraveling these underlying physics.
Authors: Geoffrey A Lott; Alejandro Perdomo-Ortiz; James K Utterback; Julia R Widom; Alán Aspuru-Guzik; Andrew H Marcus Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ellen H G Backus; Robbert Bloem; Paul M Donaldson; Janne A Ihalainen; Rolf Pfister; Beatrice Paoli; Amedeo Caflisch; Peter Hamm Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: Khadga J Karki; Julia R Widom; Joachim Seibt; Ian Moody; Mark C Lonergan; Tõnu Pullerits; Andrew H Marcus Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Stoichko D Dimitrov; Artem A Bakulin; Christian B Nielsen; Bob C Schroeder; Junping Du; Hugo Bronstein; Iain McCulloch; Richard H Friend; James R Durrant Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Alexei Halpin; Philip J M Johnson; Roel Tempelaar; R Scott Murphy; Jasper Knoester; Thomas L C Jansen; R J Dwayne Miller Journal: Nat Chem Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 24.427
Authors: Elisabet Romero; Ramunas Augulis; Vladimir I Novoderezhkin; Marco Ferretti; Jos Thieme; Donatas Zigmantas; Rienk van Grondelle Journal: Nat Phys Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 20.034
Authors: Yifei Jiang; Qiongzheng Hu; Haobin Chen; Jicheng Zhang; Daniel T Chiu; Jason McNeill Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 15.336