Ganna Gryn'ova1, Kun-Han Lin1,2, Clémence Corminboeuf1,2. 1. Laboratory for Computational Molecular Design, Institute of Chemical Sciences and Engineering , École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) , 1015 Lausanne , Switzerland. 2. Laboratory for Computational Molecular Design and National Center for Computational Design and Discovery of Novel Materials (MARVEL) , École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) , 1015 Lausanne , Switzerland.
Abstract
The performance and key electronic properties of molecular organic semiconductors are dictated by the interplay between the chemistry of the molecular core and the intermolecular factors of which manipulation has inspired both experimentalists and theorists. This Perspective presents major computational challenges and modern methodological strategies to advance the field. The discussion ranges from insights and design principles at the quantum chemical level, in-depth atomistic modeling based on multiscale protocols, morphological prediction and characterization as well as energy-property maps involving data-driven analysis. A personal overview of the past achievements and future direction is also provided.
The performance and key electronic properties of molecular organic semiconductors are dictated by the interplay between the chemistry of the molecular core and the intermolecular factors of which manipulation has inspired both experimentalists and theorists. This Perspective presents major computational challenges and modern methodological strategies to advance the field. The discussion ranges from insights and design principles at the quantum chemical level, in-depth atomistic modeling based on multiscale protocols, morphological prediction and characterization as well as energy-property maps involving data-driven analysis. A personal overview of the past achievements and future direction is also provided.
Since the early experiments in the 1940s,
immense progress in fabrication,
particularly solution processing, and characterization of small-molecule
and polymer organic semiconductors transported these systems from
the laboratory bench to billions of hands and households. From phone
and television displays to nanoscale memory and sensing devices, organic
field effect transistors (OFETs) and light emitting diods (OLEDs)
play an increasingly important role in modern technology. π-Conjugated
cores are the typical buildings blocks in such molecular semiconductor
materials, offering facile tuning of the key electronic properties
via diverse chemical modifications. Further advantages of organic
semiconductors compared to conventional silicon-based materials include
mechanical flexibility, lightweight and easy and inexpensive solution
processability.[1−3] Though these cover a wide range of materials, from
molecules to polymers and from single- to multicomponent blends, in
this Perspective we focus on molecular, primarily crystalline single-component
organic semiconductors. Continuous refinement of design strategies
and fabrication techniques allowed them to now routinely display impressive
charge carrier mobilities of over 1 cm2 V–1 s–1, reaching as high as 20–40 cm2 V–1 s–1 in single crystals and
even hundreds of cm2 V–1 s–1 in ultrapure samples at low temperatures.[1,4,5]Advanced understanding of the chemical
and physical factors determining
the properties and performance of molecular semiconductors is an obvious
prerequisite toward systematic improvement of their mobility and stability.
In this context, two fundamental challenges are (1) the lack of a
universal theory of charge transport and (2) the complex dependence
of transport characteristics on the material’s morphology.
These challenges have been discussed in a number of comprehensive
reviews.[6−13] Here, we focus on the ingenious and, at times, only available solutions
to these problems offered by computational chemistry. Above that,
we select illustrative examples that yield conceptual insights into
the structure–property relationships of molecular semiconductors
and to allow for better understanding of their charge transport properties,
ultimately aiming at better performing systems. We especially discuss
how diverse computational approaches, from quantum chemistry-based
understanding of intermolecular interactions to multiscale modeling
of (disordered) crystalline morphologies and high-throughput computations
of charge mobility, advance the field of organic semiconductors (Chart ). While the chemical
nature of the molecular building blocks is unquestionably important
on its own, here we offer our perspective on the intermolecular context
of organic semiconductors, crucial both in terms of the interactions
within the material and its structural organization (packing). Overall,
this Perspective assembles a relevant selection of recent studies
demonstrating that the field of organic semiconductors represents
an ideal playground for further developing and exploiting all types
of atomic-scale modeling methods ranging from advanced quantum chemical
tools to the latest innovations such as machine learning (ML).[14−17] Of interest to the experimental community, it also highlights strategies
to acquire in-depth chemistry-based information, necessary to advance
the field.
Chart 1
Focus Areas of this Perspective
Fundamental Aspects of Atomic-Scale Modeling
of Semiconductors
Before discussing specific computational
approaches to organic
semiconductors, we briefly outline two fundamental challenges in this
area, i.e., the choice of the theoretical model underlying the transport
computation and the treatment of the material’s structure in
it.
Charge Transport Theories
A number of theoretical descriptions,
corresponding to distinctly different regimes of charge transport,
are continuously debated in the literature.[6−13] Band transport describes conduction of delocalized charges in a
low temperature limit. Within this framework, charge mobility depends
upon the effective mass of the charge carrier and the relaxation time
of the band (i.e., the average time between collisions). Band-structure
computations provide access to these and related parameters in order
to quantify the rate of band transport.[6,18,19] As temperature rises, the band narrowing[20] leads to charge localization, switching on the
thermally activated transport. Traditionally described as a charge
hopping between the neighbor molecules, this mechanism has been challenged
in the recent years, with the observed mobility being instead attributed
to the presence of structural defects and trap sites. Nonetheless,
the hopping model in the framework of the Holstein small polaron theory
is still very informative and routinely employed to rationalize the
transport properties of organic semiconductors due to its simplicity
and intuitiveness. Depending on the treatment of the molecular vibrations,
several flavors of the thermally activated hopping exist: the popular
Marcus theory,[21−23] the Levich–Jortner formalism,[10,24,25] and the spectral overlap method.[26−28] Furthermore, the band theory can be extended to include not only
the local electron–phonon coupling (also called Holstein coupling,
diagonal dynamic disorder, and corresponds to the reorganization energy
in Marcus theory)[29−31] but also the nonlocal electron–phonon coupling
(Peierls coupling, off-diagonal dynamic disorder).[32,33] The latter is closely associated with the static and dynamic disorders,
which are often inseparable in organic semiconductors, further complicating
the modeling. An ultimate goal, to cater to various transport regimes
for a broad range of temperatures, becomes achievable with the development
of methods capable of describing the band-to-hopping crossover.[34−36] Importantly, regardless of the actual equation used to compute the
charge mobility μ, it is generally greater in systems with smaller
local electron–phonon coupling (reorganization energy, λ)
and larger electronic coupling (also often called “transfer
integral”, V).[1,4] Methods for
computing[13,37,38] and chemical
means for tuning the reorganization energy[39−42] are discussed in the cited literature.
Electronic coupling, the measure of “communication”
between the neighbor cores within the crystal structure, can be evaluated
using one of several available theoretical models.[43−52] Obviously, V is strongly dependent on the morphology
of the material (the nature and diversity of the nearest-neighbor
dimers within the crystal), a topic that is extensively addressed
in the next sections. Ultimately, any study modeling organic semiconductors
is bound to choose the transport theory/regime, but this Perspective
essentially covers examples based on the hopping transport model in
the framework of Marcus theory.
Morphology of Molecular
Semiconductors
The other crucial
step in modeling organic semiconductor involves choosing a way to
approximate and describe the system’s structural arrangement.
Assemblies of π-conjugated cores feature such diverse morphologies
as the disordered amorphous and the ordered crystalline phases. The
latter exist in an array of packing motifs, from herringbone, typically
associated with suppressed orbital overlap between the adjacent cores
but often featuring large charge mobilities due to polarization effects
(e.g., OFET mobility of >3.0 cm2 V–1 s–1 in dinaphtho[2,3-b:2′,3′-f]thieno[3,2-b]thiophene, DNTT),[48,53,54] to π-stacking involving
strong electronic couplings (Figure ).[1] In some systems, the
existence of several polymorphs,[55] whose
stability in molecular materials has been recently shown to correlate
with the number of short intermolecular contacts,[56] further inflates the structural diversity and complicates
computational analysis. Variation in the electronic couplings between
different pairs of neighbor cores (i.e., in different directions)
results in the anisotropy of charge mobility in many crystalline organic
semiconductors. In cases where the experimental crystal structure
is available, it can be used to extract the representative nearest-neighbor
dimers, compute their electronic couplings and construct the angular
resolution mobility anisotropy curve.[57−59] A more sophisticated
alternative, often referred to as the multiscale approach, takes into
account the entire crystal structure and involves computing electronic
and local electron–phonon couplings, running molecular dynamics
simulations to access the energetic, configurational and dynamic disorder,
and finally performing the diffusive charge dynamics simulation to
evaluate the bulk mobility.[60−62] In the absence of experimental
crystal structures, which is often the case for newly designed systems,
the morphology of ordered systems is often approximated by scanning
various dimer geometries, generated either manually by systematically
varying their structural parameters[43,63,64] or in an automatized manner using, for instance,
random search algorithms,[65] and constructing
two-dimensional maps of their electronic couplings; for disordered
systems, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are often employed to
probe the morphologies.[66] However, neither
of these methods affords insights beyond the dimer level. Thus, crystal
structure prediction (CSP) becomes necessary to achieve a complete
representation of the complex material morphology.[67] In this Perspective, we discuss these different approaches
to miscellaneous packing scenarios.
Figure 1
Typical aggregates and crystal packing
motives of the π-conjugated
cores: (A) lamellar π–π stacking motifs with one-dimensional
charge carrier channel, (B) brick-stone or brick-wall (also called
β-sheet) arrangement with two-dimensional π–π
stacking; (C) γ-packing with slipped face-to-face π–π
stacking; (D) herringbone face-to-edge packing without face-to-face
π–π overlap.
Typical aggregates and crystal packing
motives of the π-conjugated
cores: (A) lamellar π–π stacking motifs with one-dimensional
charge carrier channel, (B) brick-stone or brick-wall (also called
β-sheet) arrangement with two-dimensional π–π
stacking; (C) γ-packing with slipped face-to-face π–π
stacking; (D) herringbone face-to-edge packing without face-to-face
π–π overlap.
Dimer Model
Focus on Energy
The most straightforward,
albeit limited,
approach to understand the relationship between charge transport properties
and geometrical structures involves computing and comparing the interaction
energies, electronic couplings (in the framework of properly orthogonalized
monomer orbitals[46−48]) and reorganization energies of the representative
dimers of diverse molecular cores.[68] Aside
from this routine, rationalizing the physical nature of the interactions
behind the molecular packing and their connection to the resulting
charge transport properties is crucial for modeling and designing
crystalline organic semiconductors.[69−71] In this regard, quantum
chemistry offers diverse tools to analyze and classify typical noncovalent
patterns (e.g., the π–π stacking, common in these
systems) or to quantify and identify the nature of the dominant interactions.[72−76]In the present context, schemes that allow for the decomposition
of the intermolecular interactions between two molecules into physically
meaningful energy contributions (e.g., London dispersion, exchange,
induction, electrostatics, etc.) are rapidly becoming a popular means
of rationalizing the morphological and transport properties of organic
semiconductors. Numerous flavors of these so-called energy decomposition
analysis (EDA) schemes exist, each relying on simple approximations
or on a different central quantum chemical concept (i.e., molecular
orbitals, electron density, the Hamiltonian) to proceed with the energy
decomposition. An early work by Azumi et al.[77] demonstrated the utility of comparing low and high-level interaction
energies (Hartree–Fock, MP2, extrapolated CCSD(T) limit) of
17 model thiophene dimers to rationalize the crystal packing in substituted
quaterthiophene crystals. In particular, they exploited correlation
energies together with distributed multipole/polarizability analysis[78] to assess the relative importance of London
dispersion and electrostatics in the model systems. They concluded
that dispersion interactions are the major source of attraction although
electrostatic contributions further stabilize the perpendicular thiophene
dimers considerably, thus explaining the preference for the herringbone
structures in the crystals of nonsubstituted oligothiophenes. Symmetry-adapted
perturbation theory[72,74,79−81] (generally at the SAPT0 level of approximation) is
the most frequently employed scheme to offer a nonempirical definition
of the individual energy contributions and to provide insight into
the driving forces behind the resulting material morphology. In an
extensive study of naphthodithiophenediimide (NDTI) thiophene α-substituted
derivatives,[82] SAPT along with an exploration
of the interactions in terms of intermolecular contact type (i.e.,
Hirshfeld surface analysis, vide infra)[83] were used to rationalize the change from a less
conductive herringbone packing in the nonsubstituted NDTI to a more
efficient 2D brickwork in its chlorinated derivative. In the substituted
NDTI-Cl, the electrostatic contribution to the total interaction energies
originating from halogen or hydrogen bonds was shown to play a key
role in the change of packing patterns. In the crystals of another
common organic semiconductor, rubrene, a desired π-stacked arrangement
is conditional upon the planarity of the central tetracene core, which
in turn depends on its substitution pattern. Risko, Brédas
et al.[84] employed SAPT to explain the energetic
origins of this effect. They showed that in isolated rubrene, the
central tetracene core is twisted such that the Pauli repulsion between
the neighbor phenyl moieties is minimized. However, its planarity,
associated with more favorable π–π packing, can
be restored in the crystal bulk by means of mitigating the increasing
Pauli repulsion through enhancing the stabilizing contributions (dispersion,
electrostatic and induction terms), tunable via chemical modification
of the substituents.Side-chain engineering to modulate the
crystal packing often entails
the introduction of long alkyl chains. Density functional theory (DFT)
computations (at the B97-D level) of the intermolecular interaction
energies in alkyl-substituted benzothieno[3,2-b][1]-benzothiophene
(BTBT) crystals indicated that long alkyl chains enhance the stability
of the layered-herringbone packing, which is known to afford high-performance
organic thin-film transistors.[85] The interaction
energies were decomposed in a fairly crude way into the correlation
(considered there to be mainly composed of dispersion) and Hartree–Fock
contributions, the latter was further broken down into the orbital–orbital,
electrostatic and induction (computed from distributed multipole and
atomic polarizabilities) energies. This allowed identification of
dispersion as the main stabilizing component and deduced a rule-of-thumb
for preferentially stabilizing the layered-herringbone packing: the
ratio of the total intermolecular attractive forces between the T-shaped
and slipped parallel contacts should be ca. 3:2. In the absence of
side-chain groups, the symmetry of the molecular cores itself can
influence the morphology and transport properties. In this context,
the term “disordermer” has been introduced to describe
the packing isomerism in molecular crystals. For the case of benzodithiophene,
the interaction energies in various disordermers were compared using
SAPT, which indicated that the main difference between isomeric dimers
arises from the exchange contribution and that arrangements with direct
S–S contacts and correspondingly high electronic couplings
are generally disfavored by this term.[86] Polymorphism is yet another facet of the morphological diversity
of organic semiconductors. Risko et al. employed SAPT to compare the
intermolecular interactions in triisopropylsilylethynyl (TIPS) pentacene
and its triethylsilylethynyl (TES) analog, for which they also generated
different crystal packing configurations in silico and mapped their dimer potential energy surface.[87] The functionalization of pentacene typically leads to polymorphic
situations, where the chromophore π-cores spatially overlap
with TIPS and TES adopting brickwork and slipped-stack arrangement
(see Figure ) respectively.
In fact, dispersion interactions between the trialkylsilylethynyl
groups (as opposed to those between the cores) were found to be the
driving force between the tighter brickwork packing in TIPS-pentacene
and the less compressible slipped-stack-in TES-pentacene. Processing
strategies to impose more favorable packing in TES-pentacene were
proposed. Overall, these studies generally highlight the crucial role
of dispersion as the key stabilizing force counterbalancing the repulsive
exchange and imposing specific packing in the engineered dimer-based
structures.However, alternative chemical strategies can be
employed to amplify
a different stabilizing component–the charge penetration contribution
to the electrostatic interactions.[88−93] For example, combined SAPT and distributed multipole analyses (DMA)[78] of the interaction energetics in the dimers
of heteroaromatic π-conjugated cores demonstrated that, in contrast
to the dispersion-driven acene dimers, systems featuring heavier and
more diffuse heteroatoms (e.g., sulfur, selenium and phosphorus) are
driven by charge penetration.[94] Such systems
also typically feature greater electronic couplings, suggesting that
charge penetration can be utilized to enhance stability and mobility
in molecular semiconductors. Extending this concept from organic semiconductors
to noncovalent (dimer) molecular junctions, we have shown that similar
chemical patterns determine the transport in these two types of molecular
electronic assemblies. The interplay between the molecular and intermolecular
parameters combined with the role of the packing motif generates a
unified picture of noncovalent molecular electronics (Chart ).[95]
Chart 2
Spectrum of Relationships between the Molecular and Intermolecular
Factors, which Dominate the Transport Properties of Different Noncovalent
Molecular Electronic Architecturesa
Reprinted with permission
from ref (95). Copyright
2018 American Chemical Society.Despite all
of the insights obtained from dimer-level studies,
the shortcomings of this approach, such as neglecting bulk morphology,
are rather obvious. Thus, it is necessary to continue developing EDA
schemes that permit the treatment of many-fragment systems.[96−98] Moving toward realistic morphologies, EDA can also serve to parametrize
and/or benchmark force fields.[99−101] For example, to assess the performance
of commonly used force fields for describing the intermolecular interactions
in molecular semiconductors, Engels et al. compared the results of
different energy decomposition schemes (i.e., SAPT and localized molecular
orbital energy decomposition analysis LMO-EDA) with those obtained
using the MM3, OPLS-AA and AMOEBA force fields.[102] They found that in the model dimers of both the apolar
(e.g., acenes) and highly polarized π-systems (merocyanines
and squaraines), the shape of the potential energy surface (PES) is
determined by variations in the highly specific short-range (exchange)
repulsion forces. Several approaches were introduced to mimic the
intermolecular potentials with electrostatics and exchange using distributed
quadrupoles,[103] van der Waals potentials[104] or a simple π-orbital overlap-based force-field
ansatz.[105]
Focus on the Electronic
Structure
In addition to analyzing
the dominating energetic contributions between the building blocks
of organic semiconductors, insight can be gained by considering the
features of the spatial distribution of their charge, multipole or
intermolecular contact. For example, a combination of contact distance
mapping (Hirshfeld surface analysis) with molecular electrostatic
potential plots, polarizabilities and quadrupole moments was employed
to compare a range of crystalline phases of nine heteroaromatic pentacene
cores featuring diverse packing motifs.[106] Hirshfeld surfaces served to analyze the prevalence of contact points
and their spatial distribution in the molecular crystals, which were
then sorted into three groups according to their resemblance. The
electrostatic nature of the underlying interactions (contacts) was
then analyzed to identify that the herringbone packing is favored
for systems with uniform electrostatic potentials. Cores with peripherally
perturbed ESPs (due to electronegative substituents) instead crystallize
in columnar and brickwork morphologies.Other qualitative classes
of approaches, which can reveal the presence of noncovalent interactions
in real space, have also made their way into the area of organic semiconductors.
Relevant examples are the noncovalent interactions index (NCI),[107] which exploits the reduced density gradient
at low-density values, and the Density Overlap Regions Indicator (DORI),[108] which reveals regions with pronounced density
overlap. In essence, the noncovalent domains identified by these approaches
should not be used to rationalize the trends in interaction energies.
Instead, these approaches can serve to visualize dominant nonbonded
contacts and help understanding the influence of the density-based
features of a given packing motif on the charge transport properties.
A recent application of NCI in the field of organic semiconducting
molecular crystals includes the computations on all nearest-neighbor
dimers of dihydroindolocarbazole isomers extracted from their crystals.
The analysis revealed that multiple intermolecular NH···π
and CH···π interactions with energies close to
common NH···N hydrogen bonds are associated with higher
electronic couplings for hole transport and, correspondingly, better
charge mobility in the crystals.[109] In
this latter study as well as in ref (82), topological analysis of the density using Bader’s
Quantum Theory of Atoms in Molecules (QTAIM)[110] has also served to find bond critical points between nearest-neighbor
dimers and identify the nature of the dominant nonbonded contacts.
Relying upon DORI, some of us examined the effectiveness of H-bonding
and dispersion-driven side-chain aggregators to impose the tighter
π-stacked arrangement in one-dimensional (1D) quaterthiophene
nanowires.[111,112] It was also demonstrated that
the electronic compactness, as probed by DORI, largely mirrors the
computed charge transport properties in the derivatives of quaterthiophene
crystal, 1D nanofibrils of quaterthiophene- and oligothienoacene-type
cores.[113]More controversial connections
have been made between the “aromatic”
character of dimerized trithiophene units and their hole mobility.
However, these relationships, which suggest that decreased aromaticity
(based on nucleus independent chemical shifts (NICS(1)) and harmonic
oscillator model of aromaticity (HOMA) indices) is beneficial for
transport,[114] suffer from the lack of unique
quantitative assessments of fuzzy chemical concepts such as aromaticity.[115,116]Despite extensive use of these quantum chemistry-based analytical
tools and the valuable insights they provide, their main impact has
so far been restricted to the rationalization of structure–energy–property
trends.[86,87,109,113] Some have led to the formulation of concrete design
principles,[84,85,94,95,111] albeit they
remain yet to be fully exploited experimentally. Though design strategies
based on the static dimer models are certainly insufficient to predict
systems with better mobilities, some of the more rigorous and creative
studies, discussed above, offer reliable opportunities to go beyond
standard trial and error approaches. What is largely lacking at present
is an efficient transfer of this unquestionably useful knowledge into
an experimental domain.
Beyond dimers
Multiscale Approaches
The dimer approach became the
workhorse of organic semiconductor quantum chemical modeling, habitually
employed to either predict mobility or rationalize experimentally
measured transport properties. However, it is inherently limited to
only capture the elementary event of a charge hop between the neighbor
molecules and thus neglects other critical factors, including the
crystal packing, the presence of defects, the various disorder effects,
etc. Multiscale approaches to charge transport deliver the remedy
to these limitations.[60−62] They generally combine classical molecular dynamics
of the semiconductor morphology with an estimation of the drift mobility
within the high-temperature Marcus theory limit using, e.g., kinetic
Monte Carlo (kMC) or master equation techniques. Flavors of multiscale
approaches exist due to different methods and models used for computing
the reorganization energies and electronic couplings and evaluating
the disorder effects. Some studies also include crystal structure
prediction (vide infra) or free energy estimation
of the crystalline assemblies in their multiscale protocol. In any
case, the multistage nature of these computations implies the need
to use and interface several codes and methods. In this context, integrated
computational workflows,[62,117,118] such as the Versatile Object-oriented Toolkit for Coarse-graining
Applications (VOTCA),[119] significantly
facilitate the multiscale modeling of microscopic transport (Chart ).
Chart 3
Workflow for Microscopic
Simulations of Charge Transport Using VOTCAa
Reprinted with permission
from ref (60). Copyright
2011 American Chemical Society.
Disorder Effects
When a molecular solid loses translational
symmetry, both site energies (ε) and electronic couplings show
a widespread static energetic and static positional disorder. Static
disorder is naturally present in amorphous organic semiconductors
and is detrimental to charge transport. In a perfectly ordered organic
crystal (without chemical and structural defects), on the other hand,
the only type of disorder is dynamic, arising from the thermal vibrations
of the molecules.[120] Local and nonlocal
electron–phonon couplings in the bulk structure, which can
be extracted from multiscale simulations, allow for assessment of
the extent of thermal fluctuations of the site energy ε and
electronic coupling V.[121] Significant efforts have been carried out to develop fast and accurate
methods for evaluating site energies.[122] In VOTCA, they are computed based on the microelectrostatic approach,
in which correction terms (i.e., electrostatic and induction) are
added to the isolated molecule’s ε.[60] Cornil et al. exploited constrained-DFT to compute ε
from the energy difference between charged and neutral molecular clusters.[123] Alternatively, site energies can be computed
with quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) frameworks,[124] intramolecular charge redistribution,[125] quantum patch approach[126] or a mixed valence bond/Hartree–Fock (VB/HF) model.[127]The important role of the dynamic energetic
disorder in crystals has been illustrated by simulating hole mobilities
of dicyanovinyl-substituted oligothiophene (DCVnT) crystals utilizing
VOTCA.[128] The conformational disorder arising
from thermal fluctuations of DCV-thiophene dihedral angles leads to
substantial energetic disorder σE, resulting in a
1–2 orders of magnitude decrease in hole mobility. This reduction
originates from interactions between the charge carriers and local
electric fields induced by the fluctuating multipoles (conformational
disorder). In addition, the presence of the energetic disorder can
further lower the mobility by introducing energetic traps in the original
(disorder-free) percolating network, as seen in the DCV3T and DCV4T
cases. Computationally, the contributions to σE can
be partitioned into unscreened Coulomb interactions and polarization
with the latter causing a significant reduction. This, in turn, sheds
light on the future rational design of organic semiconductors that
feature large molecular polarizabilities to reduce σE.Comparisons between computed and experimental mobilities
for 22
π-conjugated cores (as crystalline and thin-film semiconductors)
were performed based on a similar protocol.[129] Three different models were used to account for different degrees
of dynamic disorder: (1) perfect crystal based on experimentally derived
structures (zero disorder), (2) an MD-equilibrated structure with
only dynamic positional disorder and (3) an MD-equilibrated structure
with both disorders. A significant decrease in hole mobilities was
observed after taking into account the energetic disorder (model (3)
vs model (2)). Interestingly, the best agreement for experimental
organic crystal mobilities was achieved using the perfect crystal
model (rather than the MD-equilibrated morphology) and neglecting
the σE. However, mobilities computed based on a more
realistic model (3) are much lower than the experimental OFET ones.
This fictitious agreement between experiment and the simplified perfect
crystal model may be due to the discrepancy in charge carrier concentration
between simulations and experiments. The experimentally determined
OFET mobilities are usually measured at high carrier concentration,
which is less sensitive to energetic disorder due to a trap-filling
effect.[130] Yet, the kMC simulations are
instead typically performed with only one charge carrier, coinciding
with lower mobilities upon incorporation of σE.[128]Given the detrimental effect the energetic
disorder has on charge
transport, it is crucial to account for it when optimizing a given
semiconductor. Failing to do so may cause the desired improvements
in material’s other properties to be negated by its amplified
σE. For example, adding solubilizing groups, which
is a common practice for improving the solution processability of
the semiconductor, will also likely alter molecular packing and σE. Brédas, Coropceanu and co-workers demonstrated that,
among various fullerene solubilizing adducts, indene-based adducts
in general lead to smaller dynamic energetic disorders as compared
to butyric-acid-methyl-ester ones.[131]In addition to energetic disorder, the thermal fluctuations of
the electronic couplings (dynamic positional disorder) have a large
impact on the charge transport. Combining transmission electron microscopy
(TEM) and MD simulations, Illig et al. showed that substitution of
the side chains along the long axis of a conjugated core can be an
effective strategy for reducing intermolecular thermal vibrations,
leading to a decreased dynamic positional disorder. The small positional
disorder present in the crystal can explain the outstanding charge
mobility of C8-BTBT and C10-DNTT.[132] Dynamic
positional disorder can sometimes enhance mobility, as seen in fluorinatedperylene bisimide organic semiconductors.[133] In this case, the optimal molecular packing in the crystal, induced
by intermolecular interactions, leads to minimal electronic coupling
(Figure ). Therefore,
deviations from the equilibrated packing configuration result in larger
electronic couplings and thereby higher charge mobility. The importance
of the dynamic positional disorder recently prompted Landi and Troisi
to develop a computational methodology for the fast evaluation of
nonlocal electron–phonon couplings. Their method affords excellent
agreement with the results of more accurate computations and allows
the screening of large databases for promising organic semiconductors
with optimal molecular arrangements.[134]
Figure 2
Dependence
of the electronic coupling on the relative transversal
shift between the cores of alkyl-substituted perylene bisimide starting
from the perfectly π-stacked (red) and crystal (blue) dimer
geometries; intermolecular distance is kept equal to that in a crystal.
Reprinted with permission from ref (133). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society.
Dependence
of the electronic coupling on the relative transversal
shift between the cores of alkyl-substituted perylene bisimide starting
from the perfectly π-stacked (red) and crystal (blue) dimer
geometries; intermolecular distance is kept equal to that in a crystal.
Reprinted with permission from ref (133). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society.Although useful insights can be
obtained from a multiscale simulation
based on pure single crystal morphology, the computed charge mobility
is usually much higher than that of a polycrystalline organic thin
film. Charge hopping processes across grain boundaries serve as limiting
steps of the overall charge transport process despite a relatively
fast intragrain charge transport. Practically, a calibration can be
applied to the simulated single-crystal mobility to account for the
difference between the single crystal and the realistic polycrystalline
morphology. On the basis of a one-dimensional microstructure model,
Shin et al. derived a calibration equation with the unknown coefficients
fitted by μcal/μexp – grain
size plot for 4 different organic semiconductors.[135] The transferability of the calibration equation is further
examined by comparing experimental charge mobilities with the calibrated
single-crystal ones for 17 organic semiconductors. A large mismatch
(1–2 orders of magnitude) is observed between experimental
and calibrated mobilities for several molecules, which implies that
the detailed microscopic information is critical, but is missing in
the simple calibration model. Nelson et al. further investigated the
energetic profile across the grain boundary and the dependence of
the charge transport on the relative orientations of the grains.[136] The disruption of the crystalline packing at
the grain boundary results in energetic barriers for holes and potential
wells for electrons, which lower the charge mobility by ∼2
orders of magnitude. As the contact length between the grains shortens,
the charge mobility becomes correlated to the relative orientation
of the two grains, where the charge transport is confined to a high-energy
pathway. Apart from the grain boundaries, crystal step edges can hamper
electron transport in n-type organic semiconductors.[137] They have a relatively positive surface potential
as compared to the flat surface, which can form in-gap states that
trap electrons. To our knowledge, the effect of the crystal step edges
has not yet been investigated in any previous work utilizing a multiscale
approach, presumably due to the limitation of the simulated system
size.For amorphous organic semiconductors, the static disorder
becomes
dominant over the dynamic one,[138] thus
the simulated mobility, based on a crystal structure, overestimates
the real charge mobility. Several computational protocols have been
utilized to construct organic amorphous morphologies relying upon
classical MD or Monte Carlo simulations.[139] Owing to the enormous conformational disorder characteristic of
the amorphous morphology, it is necessary to account for the intrinsic
energetic disorder (σi) resulting from a spread of
HOMO energy levels, induced by various molecular conformations, in
addition to the contributions from the Coulomb interactions and polarization
(σp).[140] The former can
be evaluated by the HOMO energy variation with respect to the conformational
change, while the latter shows a correlation with the molecular dipole
moment and intermolecular distance.[138] From
an a priori molecular design perspective, it is essential
to estimate the extent of energetic disorder on the charge mobility.[141−143] Thus, single molecule properties (HOMO energy, dipole moment, etc.)
are likely to represent a helpful screening criterion to rule out
unfavorable candidates.
Packing Effects
The charge mobility
of an organic crystal
is usually anisotropic. For this reason, accessing the full mobility
tensor is crucial to align the fastest transport pathway with the
charge transport direction (electric field direction). The anisotropic
mobility can be reflected in a polar plot (Figure ),[144] where kMC
simulations are performed with the electric fields applied in various
directions. Even at the pairwise (dimer) level, this type of analysis
is useful to rationalize the transport properties of different polymorphs.
For example, among the three polymorphs of a dipyrrolyldiketone difluoroboron
complex, two were shown to feature a one-dimensional transport along
the π-stacks (hampered by the localized trap sites in one of
them), while the third instead involves a three-dimensional transport.[145] Multiscale simulations also provide an insight
into the relationship between molecular structure, morphology, percolation
network and charge carrier mobility.[146] This protocol involves computing the electronic coupling between
all neighbor molecules within a crystal structure snapshot. But in
addition to simply evaluating the charge transfer rates using the
Marcus theory, this information can also serve to visualize the charge
transport dimensionality and directionality and the impact of the
disorder on the transport topology via the so-called connectivity
graphs (Figure A).
In these graphs, the electronic couplings above certain threshold
value are shown as “bonds”. This work illustrated that,
despite the common perception, a perfectly π-stacked arrangement
is not necessarily the one with the highest mobility. Instead, a shifted
cofacial alignment is a better alternative as it allows tighter packing
(decreasing the hop distance) and a two-dimensional transport that
reduces the influence of defects. This beneficial packing can be enforced
by the attachment of side chains perpendicular to the conjugated core,
as in the case of rubrene.[84] Despite the
usefulness of connectivity graphs based on electronic couplings, their
direct comparison for different organic crystals does not provide
information concerning relative charge transport performance. Since
the threshold of the electronic coupling V used in
the graph is arbitrary and high V alone does not
guarantee fast transport, replacing this parameter with a more representative
quantity would be very advantageous. Recently, we constructed connectivity
graphs based on a single-hop mobility μsh between
each dimer (Figure B).[147] To construct the graphs, it is
necessary to identify the maximum single-hop mobility μsh,max, then plot all μsh within a certain
factor of μsh,max as ‘bonds’. The resulting
graphs based on this quantitative reference provide in-depth topological
transport behavior and are particularly beneficial for systematically
investigating and comparing systems within a database. Besides their
application to crystals, topological connectivity plots based on electronic
couplings have been constructed for DCVnT of amorphous and smectic
mesophases.[148] In addition to the electronic
coupling, spatial information on the site energy helps rationalizing
charge transport in disordered phases. This information can be represented
by an energetic color map (Figure ) showing the energetic spatial correlation induced
by large molecular dipole moments. Important molecular pairs that
contribute significantly to the total current can be further identified
by the edge current analysis. The significantly lower charge mobility
of a more ordered smectic phase of DCV6T compared to that of its amorphous
counterpart can only be explained using this three-dimensional information.
Figure 3
Polar
plots of hole (left, filled circles) and electron (right,
empty circles) anisotropic mobility, computed for different disorder
conditions (black and blue). Reprinted with permission from ref (144). Copyright 2018 American
Chemical Society.
Figure 4
(A) Nearest-neighbor
alignment and corresponding percolation (connectivity)
network of electronic couplings in representative semiconductor crystals.
Reprinted with permission from ref (146). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society.
(B) Transport patterns of representative molecular semiconductors,
in which the topological connectivity is based on single-hop mobilities
within a factor of 2 (TC-2) and 10 (TC-10) of μsh,max. Adapted from ref (147).
Figure 5
Equilibrated simulation boxes (a) and topology
of hole hopping
in amorphous and smectic DCV6T, depicted via connectivity plots (b)
and color maps (c). Reproduced with permission from ref (148). Copyright 2012 Royal
Society of Chemistry.
Polar
plots of hole (left, filled circles) and electron (right,
empty circles) anisotropic mobility, computed for different disorder
conditions (black and blue). Reprinted with permission from ref (144). Copyright 2018 American
Chemical Society.(A) Nearest-neighbor
alignment and corresponding percolation (connectivity)
network of electronic couplings in representative semiconductor crystals.
Reprinted with permission from ref (146). Copyright 2010 American Chemical Society.
(B) Transport patterns of representative molecular semiconductors,
in which the topological connectivity is based on single-hop mobilities
within a factor of 2 (TC-2) and 10 (TC-10) of μsh,max. Adapted from ref (147).Equilibrated simulation boxes (a) and topology
of hole hopping
in amorphous and smectic DCV6T, depicted via connectivity plots (b)
and color maps (c). Reproduced with permission from ref (148). Copyright 2012 Royal
Society of Chemistry.Overall, multiscale approaches have been used to (i) reproduce experimental charge mobilities, (ii)
explain their trends from a molecular perspective and (iii) guide molecular design.[128,129,149] Akin to the preceding section, the discovery of new high-performance
molecular semiconductors based on these approaches is still scarce.
One major obstacle is the inaccessibility of reasonable crystal morphologies
of new organic molecules, highlighting the crucial role of crystal
structure prediction, discussed in next section. In addition to bulk
morphology, various interfacial effects are likely to impact the mobility.
On one hand, within any electronic device the charge is transported
across numerous interfaces and the resulting device mobility is a
combination of transport within (including the organic semiconducting
ones) and between the layers. This is addressed by complete device
simulations[150−154] and is outside of the direct scope of this Perspective. On the other
hand, the interface can also affect the intrinsic charge transport
characteristics of a semiconducting layer itself in a number of ways.
For example, in organic thin film transistors (OTFTs), charge transport
occurs primarily in only the several molecular layers neighboring
the organic semiconductor/dielectric interface.[155] Therefore, molecular alignment near the interface is crucial
to the measured charge mobility of OTFTs. Different experimental techniques
have been developed to modify the interfacial properties in order
to alter the molecular packing and achieve optimal charge transport
properties.[156,157] Apart from the interfacial molecular
alignment, it has been found that the energetic disorder of the organic
semiconductor layer in an OTFT device can be enhanced due to static
dipolar disorder in the adjacent dielectric layer to an extent, proportional
to the dielectric constant of the latter.[158,159] Thus, evaluating energetic disorder on the basis of bulk morphology
only will likely lead to its underestimation. In silico prediction of such interfacial effects on site energy can, in principle,
be achieved if the constructed atomistic model is a good estimate
of a real morphology of the interface, which is still challenging
for amorphous systems.[160]
Crystal Structure
Prediction
The design of novel organic
semiconductors often stumbles upon the lack of experimental crystal
structures. Molecular crystal structure prediction has been, for a
long time, an insurmountable challenge. However, enormous research
efforts to resolve it have been slowly but surely coming to fruition
in the last 10 years, as evidenced by the growing successes in the
increasingly more complex CSP Blind Tests, set up by the Cambridge
Crystallographic Data Centre.[67,161,162] Though the field has been historically driven by the intellectual
and financial involvement from the pharmaceutical industry,[163] it is nowadays reaching the organic semiconductors
domain. An early CSP effort in this area included using experimental
crystal structures of reasonably similar molecular cores as starting
points for force field optimizations of the candidate systems. For
example, Aspuru-Guzik et al. employed this approach to predict crystal
structures of the derivatives of dinaphtho[2,3-b:2′,3′-f]thieno[3,2-b]thiophene (DNTT),[164] which were identified as promising candidates
due to their low reorganization energies.[165] The compound with the best predicted charge transport characteristics
was then tested experimentally and found to afford an impressive mobility
of up to 16 cm–2 V–1 s–1. A comparison between the predicted and experimental crystal structures
and resulting mobilities indicates that despite the quantitative disagreements
(e.g., mobility of 3.3 cm–2 V–1 s–1 was predicted for the aforementioned compound),
the computational modeling does capture the relative charge transport
trends. A more sophisticated approach to crystal structure prediction
of organic semiconductors involving global exploration of the lattice
energy surface (i.e., the potential lattice energy landscape depending
on the crystal density) was employed to evaluate the effect of small
chemical changes on crystal packing and charge mobility in a set of
azapentacenes.[166] A total of 212 000
trial crystal structures were generated using the Global Lattice Energy
Explorer software and their lattice energies were minimized using
a model potential (i.e., W99 exp-6). The resulting crystal structures
were categorized according to their packing types and used to compute
the charge mobility within the Marcus theory framework. The results
were then combined into the energy-structure–function (ESF)
maps to identify which systems offer the best combination of structural
stability and charge mobility. A large spread of electron mobility
is observed among the low energy crystal structures for all studied
molecules due to their diverse packing motifs. Crucially, for none
of the studied molecules does the crystal structure with the highest
charge mobility correspond to the global lattice energy minimum. This
dramatic relationship (more precisely, a lack thereof) is due to the
fact that both the destabilizing (exchange) contribution to the interaction
energy and the high electronic coupling are greater in systems with
better spatial overlap between the cores,[69,94,167] e.g., the perfectly π-stacked arrangement.
However, when a similar computational protocol combining crystal structure
prediction and energy–structure–function map was applied
to a potential chiral organic semiconductor, [6]helicene (Figure ), many low-energy
structures were found to have some of the highest mobilities.[6]Helicene Molecule. Nanoscale. 2018 ">168] Though none of these structures is the lowest-energy
polymorph, they are all within the thermodynamically accessible range
of 1.1–4.6 kJ mol–1 from it. Interestingly,
neither the energetically favorable nor the high charge-carrier mobility
packing motifs of [6]helicene were intuitively obvious, illustrating
the potential of such screening techniques for the development of
novel molecular semiconductors. Prototypical n-type
semiconductor, N,N′-ditridecylperylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic
diimide, exemplifies yet another type of energy-mobility relationship.
For this system, a combination of MD and metadynamics served to map
the free energy profile of various morphologies (z-component of the distance between the terminal carbon atoms of contiguous
alkyl chains was chosen as the collective variable) and access kinetic
information.[169] It was demonstrated that
the global energetic minimum configuration also affords some of the
highest charge mobility among all considered structures.
Figure 6
Lattice energy
landscape (A), labeled by the corresponding molecular
substructures of [6]helicene in the order of their decreasing frequency
(B). Reproduced with permisison from ref (168). Copyright 2018 Royal Society of Chemistry.
Lattice energy
landscape (A), labeled by the corresponding molecular
substructures of [6]helicene in the order of their decreasing frequency
(B). Reproduced with permisison from ref (168). Copyright 2018 Royal Society of Chemistry.When advantageous packing motifs
are unachievable under typical
fabrication conditions, external strain can be applied to induce molecular
reorganization and a shift into nonequilibrium morphology. In this
context, multiscale simulations were employed to predict the nonequilibrium
structures of TIPS-pentacene thin films, forming under strain, and
evaluate the associated mobility.[170] A
combination of the shear and tensile lattice strain was found not
only to significantly improve the charge mobility, but also to decrease
its anisotropy.The exploration of the crystal energy landscapes,
mentioned above,
generally involved simple force-field models for describing the intermolecular
forces (model potentials, distributed multipole) and, eventually,
biased MD simulations. Considering the tremendous efforts placed in
developing the next generation of “physics-based” machine
learning models for reproducing both molecular energies[14,15] and noncovalent interactions[171,172] or lattice energies,[171,173] we can anticipate that the prediction of entire crystal energy landscapes
will be dramatically accelerated in the near future.
Data-Driven
Searches
Not only the morphology can be
predicted by atomic-scale modeling or increasingly popular machine
learning algorithms. Large scale screening strategies can be employed
to predict the semiconducting properties of materials from various
easily computable descriptors. In a 2013 study, Manuel et al. constructed
a database made of organic compounds (77 molecules in the training
set and 19 in the test set) and exploited four ML methods that revealed
the conducting properties of Schiff base molecules.[174] About 1500 chemoinformatics descriptors were used to train
the ML models to distinguish semiconductors and nonsemiconductors.Using a “quantum” machine learning perspective (as
opposed to chemoinformatics),[14] Ceriotti,
Day and co-workers elegantly combined the accelerated, albeit accurate
predictions, of lattice energies and electronic coupling values of
polymorphs with a data-driven classification to explore the structure–energy–property
relationships of organic semiconductors.[173] The predicted crystal structures of pentacene and azapentacenes
(including crystal structures up to an energetic cutoff above the
global minimum) were taken from ref (166) and classified using the SOAP structural similarity
kernel[175] and clustering techniques.[176] Gaussian Processes Regression machine learning
models based on the same kernel were employed to predict stability-
and mobility-related properties. This modern and efficient framework
offered an appealing and unbiased classification of the predicted
crystal structures combined with dramatically accelerated computations
of the electronic couplings that enter the evaluation of charge mobility.
Ultimately, it yielded intuitive insights into relationships between
the packing motifs in polymorphs, types of intermolecular interactions
and resulting charge mobility in molecular semiconductors. This approach
was also used to screen a set of 28 structural isomers of a recently
reported promising candidate for molecular electronics, pyrido[2,3-b]pyrido-[3′,2′:4,5]pyrrolo[3,2-g]indole.[177] As before, ML allowed rapid
classification of large numbers of predicted crystal structures by
their packing motifs, construction of a multilandscape sketch-map
clustering structural patterns with predicted energetic and transport
characteristics, and identification of the promising candidate molecules
(Figure ).
Figure 7
Sketch-map
representations of the low-energy crystal structure
landscapes for the 28 studied isomers of pyrido[2,3-b]pyrido-[3′,2′:4,5]pyrrolo[3,2-g]indole.
The sketch-maps are color-coded according to (a) clusters detected
by the clustering method; (b) conventional packing motifs; (c) different
isomers; (d) calculated lattice energies (kJ/mol) and (e) predicted
electron mobilities (in cm2 V–1s–1). Reprinted with permission from ref (177). Copyright 2018 American
Chemical Society.
Sketch-map
representations of the low-energy crystal structure
landscapes for the 28 studied isomers of pyrido[2,3-b]pyrido-[3′,2′:4,5]pyrrolo[3,2-g]indole.
The sketch-maps are color-coded according to (a) clusters detected
by the clustering method; (b) conventional packing motifs; (c) different
isomers; (d) calculated lattice energies (kJ/mol) and (e) predicted
electron mobilities (in cm2 V–1s–1). Reprinted with permission from ref (177). Copyright 2018 American
Chemical Society.Automated screening workflows
are alternative high-throughput strategies,
which do not rely on statistical learning. Oberhofer et al. developed
an extensive high-throughput workflow to compute the charge transport
parameters of 95 445 molecular crystals, extracted from the
Cambridge Structural Database (CSD).[178] Electronic couplings were estimated using the fragment molecular
orbital approach (FO-DFT), whereas intramolecular reorganization energies
were obtained from nonperiodic QM/MM computations (Figure ). Such a large database of
descriptors was aimed at future materials discovery through enabling
in-depth exploration of the relationships between the chemical nature
of molecular building blocks, the crystal structures and percolation
pathways. When the charge transport parameters are available, mobility
can be computed via kinetic Monte Carlo simulations, for which van
der Kaap and Koster have also developed a high-throughput approach.[179] Their massively parallelized lattice-based
kMC method includes Coulombic particle–particle interactions
and runs on general-purpose graphic processing units. Comparison with
the mobilities, obtained by numerically solving the corresponding
master equation, validated the accuracy of this new method.
Figure 8
High-throughput
workflow, developed in ref (178). Reprinted with permission
from ref (178). Copyright
2016 American Chemical Society.
High-throughput
workflow, developed in ref (178). Reprinted with permission
from ref (178). Copyright
2016 American Chemical Society.On a much smaller scale, DFT (i.e., PBE-TS) screening performed
on the crystal structures of all 91 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
available in CSD,[180] demonstrated the existence
of a limit between the maximum optical gap and the intermolecular
cohesive energy or the C···C nonbonded contacts. Effort
was spent in bypassing the demanding optical gap computations in gas,
solution and crystalline phase via the prediction of the Kohn–Sham
gaps.There is no doubt that the aforementioned advancements
in generating
and characterizing numerous (up to the order of thousands) crystal
structures, as well as a rapidly increasing number of available experimental
morphologies (e.g., the Cambridge Structural Database, CSD, and the
recent Organic Materials Database, OMDB[181]) will coincide with the development of additional cost-efficient
electronic structure approaches or composite electronic structure-ML
methods,[182,183] offering dramatic speed-up in
computations of the related charge transport parameters[173,184] and energy landscapes.[15,171,185]
Conclusions and Outlook
Organic semiconductors are
certainly among the key players in the
arena of functional materials, performing as well, and sometimes even
better, than their conventional inorganic counterparts. These successes,
however, are conditional upon resolving diverse challenges at the
atomic, molecular and morphological length scales. This poses a formidable
yet exciting task for the computational community at large, including
chemists, physicists, materials and data scientists. In response,
various methods and models have been developed and applied to quantify
and rationalize the properties of organic electronic materials.Computational assessment of the key charge transport parameters,
electronic and local electron–phonon coupling (e.g., electronic
coupling and reorganization energy), became a routine exercise, nowadays
accompanying many, if not most experimental papers reporting new molecular
semiconductors. However, the output from computations is seemingly
hampered in its move beyond this useful, but rather limited end result.
Elegant and insightful quantum chemical approaches toward the intricate
details of charge transport on a molecular/pairwise level have so
far succeeded in explaining the known, but not predicting unknown
organic transport materials.An elephant in their room is, of
course, a complete lack of recognition
of the semiconductor morphology beyond several representative dimers.
Dreaming big, we can hypothesize that some of the bulk features, such
as disorder or lattice energy, might somehow be traced back to the
basic molecular and intermolecular features, which would certainly
facilitate and conceptualize the design and screening of organic semiconductors.
This has not been achieved so far, necessitating the development and
use of more sophisticated multiscale approaches, which combine simulations
of the bulk morphology with the modeling of the charge carrier dynamics
and, in this way, provide a considerably more realistic description
of charge transport.Still, in their core, these approaches
rely upon the availability
of materials morphology, which might arguably be the true stepping
stone for computational modeling of organic semiconductors. The validity
and significance of the most general proposed design principles would
take on another dimension if they could be readily tested on realistic
(yet unavailable for newly designed systems) morphologies. Thus, crystal
structure (and, more generally, morphology) prediction remains the
Holy Grail for the in silico organic semiconductors
community, which can hopefully build upon the successes of the pharmaceuticals-oriented
research in this domain. This road can now be traveled quicker with
the help of rapidly emerging data-driven approaches, e.g., modern
machine learning techniques, which can dramatically expedite the evaluation
of the energetic and transport characteristics of the plentiful, both
computer-generated or available experimentally, crystal structures.Computations aside, for experimentalists their Holy Grail lies
in the precise control with on-demand manipulation of the morphology
of both the bulk layers and their interfaces within the electronic
device. Ultimately, the bright future of organic semiconductors hinges
upon the ability of the computational community to move from rationalizing
to predicting materials and the willingness of experimental colleagues
to take the resulting design principles on board.
Authors: Beth Rice; Luc M LeBlanc; Alberto Otero-de-la-Roza; Matthew J Fuchter; Erin R Johnson; Jenny Nelson; Kim E Jelfs Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Christopher Sutton; Michael S Marshall; C David Sherrill; Chad Risko; Jean-Luc Brédas Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Vasiliy A Trukhanov; Dmitry I Dominskiy; Olga D Parashchuk; Elizaveta V Feldman; Nikolay M Surin; Evgeniya A Svidchenko; Maxim S Skorotetcky; Oleg V Borshchev; Dmitry Yu Paraschuk; Andrey Yu Sosorev Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.036
Authors: Philipp E Hofmann; Matthias W Tripp; Daniel Bischof; Yvonne Grell; Anna L C Schiller; Tobias Breuer; Sergei I Ivlev; Gregor Witte; Ulrich Koert Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 15.336