| Literature DB >> 27843488 |
Mohamed Bourass1, Adil Touimi Benjelloun1, Mohammed Benzakour1, Mohammed Mcharfi1, Mohammed Hamidi2, Si Mohamed Bouzzine3, Mohammed Bouachrine4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel six organic donor-π-acceptor molecules (D-π-A) used for Bulk Heterojunction organic solar cells (BHJ), based on thienopyrazine were studied by density functional theory (DFT) and time-dependent DFT (TD-DFT) approaches, to shed light on how the π-conjugation order influence the performance of the solar cells. The electron acceptor group was 2-cyanoacrylic for all compounds, whereas the electron donor unit was varied and the influence was investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Optoelectronic properties; Organic solar cells; TD-DFT; Thienopyrazine derivatives; Voc (open circuit voltage); π-conjugated molecules
Year: 2016 PMID: 27843488 PMCID: PMC5084391 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-016-0216-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Chemical structure of study compounds Pi (i = 1–6)
Fig. 2Optimized geometries obtained by B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) of the studied molecules
Optimized selected bond lengths and bond angles of the studied molecules obtained by B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level [the unit of bond lengths is angstroms (Å), the bond angles and dihedral angles is degree (°)]
| Compounds | S0 | S1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LB1 | LB2 | Φ1 | Φ2 | LB1 | LB2 | Φ1 | Φ2 | |
| P1 | 1.463 | 1.421 | 19.72 | 2.77 | 1.449 | 1.411 | 14.17 | 3.41 |
| P2 | 1.435 | 1.423 | 0.78 | 2.95 | 1.425 | 1.413 | 0.56 | 3.98 |
| P3 | 1.462 | 1.421 | 22.19 | 2.85 | 1.449 | 1.411 | 10.07 | 3.67 |
| P4 | 1.463 | 1.422 | 22.04 | 2.82 | 1.451 | 1.411 | 11.61 | 3.34 |
| P5 | 1.462 | 1.422 | 22.71 | 2.84 | 1.452 | 1.412 | 12.68 | 3.53 |
| P6 | 1.818 | 1.422 | 41.37 | 2.76 | 1.810 | 1.412 | 42.23 | 3.50 |
Calculated EHOMO, ELUMO levels, energy gap (Eg), dipole moment (ρ) and other quantum parameters chemical as electronegativity (χ), chemical potential (μ) and chemical hardness (η) values of the studied compounds obtained by B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level
| Compounds | EHOMO (eV) | ELUMO (eV) | Eg (eV) | μ (eV) | η (eV) | χ (eV) | ρ (Debye) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | −5.025 | −3.057 | 1.968 | −4.092 | 1.866 | 4.092 | 8.966 |
| P2 | −5.276 | −3.293 | 1.983 | −4.2175 | 2.117 | 4.218 | 1.851 |
| P3 | −5.091 | −3.099 | 1.992 | −4.125 | 1.932 | 4.125 | 6.803 |
| P4 | −5.139 | −3.124 | 2.015 | −4.149 | 1.98 | 4.149 | 8.980 |
| P5 | −5.155 | −3.140 | 2.015 | −4.157 | 1.996 | 4.157 | 5.975 |
| P6 | −5.33 | −3.159 | 2.171 | −4.2445 | 2.171 | 4.245 | 7.552 |
| PCBM | −6.100 | −3.750 | ***** | −4.925 | 2.350 | 4.925 | ****** |
Fig. 3The contour plots of HOMO and LUMO orbitals of the studied compounds Pi
Energy values of ELUMO (eV), EHOMO (eV), Egap (eV) and the open circuit Voltage Voc (eV) and LUMOdonor−LUMOacceptorof the studied molecules obtained by B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level
| Compounds | ELUMO (ev) | EHOMO (ev) | Voc (eV)/PC60BM | LD − LA(PC60BM) | Voc (eV)/PC71BM | LD − LA(PC71BM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | −3.057 | −5.025 | 1.499 | 0.169 | 0.425 | 1.243 |
| P2 | −3.293 | −5.276 | 1.75 | −0.067 | 0.676 | 1.007 |
| P3 | −3.099 | −5.091 | 1.565 | 0.127 | 0.491 | 1.201 |
| P4 | −3.124 | −5.139 | 1.613 | 0.102 | 0.539 | 1.176 |
| P5 | −3.140 | −5.155 | 1.629 | 0.086 | 0.555 | 1.160 |
| P6 | −3.159 | −5.330 | 1.804 | 0.107 | 0.730 | 1.141 |
| PC61BM | −3.226 | −5.985 | **** | **** | **** | **** |
| PC71BM | −4.300 | −6.000 | **** | **** | **** | **** |
Fig. 4Sketch of B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) calculated energies of the HOMO, LUMO level of study molecules
Fig. 5Calculated efficiency under AM1.5G illumination for single junction devices based on composites that consist of a donor with a variable band gap and LUMO level and an acceptor with a variable LUMO level [34]
Absorption spectra data obtained by TD-DFT methods for the title compounds at CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) optimized geometries in the gas phase and in solvent phase (chloroform)
| Compounds | In the gas phase | In solvent phase | MO/character | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| λabs (nm) | Eex (eV) | ƒ | λabs (nm) | Eex (eV) | ƒ | ||
| P1 | 591.46 | 2.0963 | 1.0923 | 625.38 | 1.9826 | 1.2732 | HOMO → LUMO |
| P2 | 584.40 | 2.1215 | 1.0513 | 618.01 | 2.0062 | 1.2540 | HOMO → LUMO |
| P3 | 585.30 | 2.1183 | 1.0564 | 620.04 | 1.9996 | 1.2416 | HOMO → LUMO |
| P4 | 581.15 | 2.1334 | 1.1148 | 615.49 | 2.0144 | 1.2817 | HOMO → LUMO |
| P5 | 580.40 | 2.1362 | 1.0411 | 613.46 | 2.0211 | 1.2234 | HOMO → LUMO |
| P6 | 548.16 | 2.2618 | 0.8707 | 574.33 | 2.1587 | 1.0239 | HOMO → LUMO |
Fig. 6Simulated UV–visible optical absorption spectra of the title compounds with the calculated data at the TD-DFT/CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level in chloroform solvent
Emission spectra data obtained by TD-DFT methods for the title compounds at B3LYP/6–31G(d,p) optimized geometries in chloroform solvent
| Compounds | Excited state | Main composition | MO | ʎmax emis (nm) | ΔE (eV) | ƒ | Radiative life times (ns) | SS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | S1 S0 | LUMO → HOMO | 0.69404 | 805.02 | 1.5401 | 1.3298 | 7.33 | 179.64 |
| P2 | S1 S0 | LUMO → HOMO | 0.68889 | 794.65 | 1.5602 | 1.2922 | 7.35 | 176.64 |
| P3 | S1 S0 | LUMO → HOMO | 0.69578 | 801.53 | 1.5468 | 1.3050 | 7.40 | 181.49 |
| P4 | S1 S0 | LUMO → HOMO | 0.68760 | 793.82 | 1.5619 | 1.3328 | 7.11 | 178.33 |
| P5 | S1 S0 | LUMO → HOMO | 0.69658 | 790.72 | 1.5680 | 1.2771 | 7.36 | 177.26 |
| P6 | S1 S0 | LUMO → HOMO | 0.69912 | 727.01 | 1.7054 | 1.0439 | 7.61 | 152.68 |