| Literature DB >> 30034747 |
S Paek1, I Zimmermann1, P Gao1, P Gratia1, K Rakstys1, G Grancini1, Mohammad Khaja Nazeeruddin1, Malik Abdul Rub2, Samia A Kosa2, Khalid A Alamry2, Abdullah M Asiri2.
Abstract
Donor-π-bridge-Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 30034747 PMCID: PMC6022229 DOI: 10.1039/c6sc01478j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.825
Fig. 1Chemical structures of PEH-3, PEH-8 and PEH-9.
Fig. 2UV-vis absorption (solid line) and emission (dashed line) spectra of PEH-3 (black), PEH-8 (blue) and PEH-9 (red) in dichloromethane.
Fig. 3(a) Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) of the three compounds with 0.1 M tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate in CH2Cl2 at a scan speed of 50 mV s–1, potentials vs. Fc/Fc+; (b) energy level diagram of each component in a hybrid solar cell calculated based on DPV measurements with isodensity surface plots of PEH-3, PEH-8 and PEH-9 as calculated by time dependent-density functional theory (TD-DFT) using the B3LYP functional/6-31G* basis set.
Optical, electrochemical, thermal and mobility parameters of the compounds
| Compounds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 426 (45 200) | 2.60 | 0.117 | –5.207 | –2.608 | 405 | 3.72 × 10–5 |
|
| 410 (55 200) | 2.71 | 0.068 | –5.198 | –2.492 | 410 | 4.05 × 10–5 |
|
| 463 (86 000) | 2.41 | 0.135 | –5.265 | –2.854 | 395 | 3.64 × 10–6 |
Absorption spectra were measured in CH2Cl2 solution.
E 0–0 was from the absorption and emission cross peak in dichloromethane solution.
Redox potentials of the compounds were measured in CH2Cl2 with 0.1 M (n-C4H9)4NPF6 with a scan rate of 50 mV s–1 (vs. Fc/Fc+).
The energy of the highest occupied molecular orbital (EHOMO) was calculated as Eox0 (V) vs. Fc/Fc+ + 0.69 vs. NHE + 4.44 vs. vacuum.
The energy of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (ELUMO) was calculated according to E0–0 – Eox.
Degradation temperature observed from TGA 5% weight loss at 10 °C min–1, N2 atmosphere.
Crystallographic data for the three triphenylamine-substituted oligomer derivatives
|
|
|
| |
| Crystal system | Orthorhombic | Monoclinic | Triclinic |
| Space group |
|
|
|
| Calculated density (g cm–3) | 1.239 | 1.280 | 1.291 |
| Short contact distance (Å) | 2.77 (CH···π) | 3.34 (π···π) | 3.48 (S···π) |
| 2.96 (CH···π) | 3.30 (π···π) | ||
| 2.50 (CH···O) | 3.34 (π···π) | ||
| 2.70 (CH···π) | 3.36 (π···π) | ||
| 2.73–2.84 (CH···π) |
Fig. 4Crystal structures of the three TPA-substituted oligomer derivatives at 273 K and 180 K. Thermal ellipsoids are set at 50% probability. The red-, yellow-, purple-, and gray-colored atoms represent O, S, N, and C, respectively. All of the hydrogen atoms have been omitted for clarity. (a, d, g) ORTEP structures of the three HTM derivatives from both face and edge perspectives: (a) PEH-3; (d) PEH-8; (g) PEH-9. (b, e, h) Crystal packing diagrams of the single crystals of the three HTM derivatives: (b) PEH-3 (Pbca (61) space group, CH···π distance of 2.77 Å, interlayer distance of 4.38 Å); (e) PEH-8 (P121/n1 (14) space group, π···π distance of 3.34 Å); (h) PEH-9 (P1[combining macron] (2) space group, π···π distances of 3.30, 3.34 and 3.36 Å, S···π distances of 3.48 Å) (red and yellow colors are used to highlight the different layers). (c, f, i) Molecular packing arrangements of the three HTM derivatives from different stacking directions: (c) PEH-3 (top view of slipped 2D stacking layers, intersection angle of longitudinal direction is 83°); (f) PEH-8 (longitudinal shift is 9.47 Å and intersection angle of longitudinal direction is 40.2°); (i) PEH-9 (edge to face alternating stacking with intersection angle of transverse direction 83.5°).
Fig. 5(a) Current (J)–voltage (V) curves of the solar cells with PEH-3, PEH-8, PEH-9 and Spiro-OMeTAD control recorded from forward bias (FB) to short circuit conditions (SC) under AM 1.5 conditions (100 mW cm–2). (b) Incident photon-to-electron conversion efficiency (IPCE) as a function of wavelength for the PSCs in (a).
Solar cell performance parameters
| Materials | Scan direction |
|
| FF | PEC (%) |
|
| FB to SC | 17.920 | 1008.0 | 69.50 | 12.560 |
| SC to FB | 17.830 | 1003.0 | 64.90 | 11.600 | |
| Average | 17.875 | 1005.5 | 67.20 | 12.080 | |
|
| FB to SC | 18.200 | 969.0 | 69.50 | 12.250 |
| SC to FB | 18.100 | 864.0 | 58.90 | 9.970 | |
| Average | 18.150 | 916.5 | 64.20 | 11.110 | |
|
| FB to SC | 20.420 | 1070.0 | 76.50 | 16.900 |
| SC to FB | 20.450 | 1058.0 | 75.20 | 16.300 | |
| Average | 20.435 | 1064.0 | 75.85 | 16.600 | |
| Spiro | FB to SC | 20.900 | 1074.0 | 77.70 | 17.420 |
| SC to FB | 20.900 | 1063.0 | 75.50 | 16.650 | |
| Average | 20.900 | 1068.5 | 76.60 | 17.035 |
Fig. 6Statistical distribution of efficiencies of the perovskite solar cells with PEH-3, PEH-8, PEH-9 and Spiro-OMeTAD. 30 devices were fabricated for each analysis. The distribution curve is fitted by the Gaussian function.
Fig. 7(a) Continuous wave (CW) photoluminescence spectra, excitation at 500 nm; (b) time resolved photoluminescence decay at 760 nm for the pristine perovskite film and the bilayer series. Excitation at λexc = 460 nm, excitation density of 1 nJ cm–2. All the samples have been encapsulated to prevent degradation or any oxygen/moisture induced effects. Solid lines represent the fitting curve resulting from exponential fitting in the form of y = A1 × exp(–x/t1) + A2 × exp(–x/t2). See Table S2† for the fitting parameters.