Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor

Handle URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10754/599178
Title:
Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor
Authors:
Woo, Claire H.; Holcombe, Thomas W.; Unruh, David A.; Sellinger, Alan; Fréchet, Jean M. J.
Abstract:
The solar cell performance of poly[3-(4-n-octyl)-phenylthiophene] (POPT) and poly(3hexylthiophene) (P3HT) are compared in devices using 4,7-bis(2-(l-(2-ethylhexyl)-4,5-dicyanoimidazol-2-yl)vinyi)benzo[c][l,2,5] -thiadiazole (EV-BT) as the electron acceptor. Despite their reduced light absorption, POPT:EV-BT devices generate higher photocurrents in both bilayer and bulk heterojunction (BHJ) architectures than analogous P3HT:EV-BT devices. Optimized POPT:EV-BT BHJ devices achieve 1.4% average efficiency, whereas the analogous P3HT devices only reach 1.1%. Morphology does not account for the large difference in performance as AFM studies of the active layer suggest, comparable levels of phase separation in the two systems. Reverse bias analysis demonstrates that P3HT devices have a higher maximum potential than POPT devices, but P3HT devices appear to be more severely limited by recombination losses under standard operating conditions. A possible explanation for the superior performance in POPT devices is that the pendant phenyl ring in POPT can twist out-of-plane and increase the separation distance with the acceptor molecule. A larger donor/acceptor separation distance can destabilize the geminate pair and lead to more efficient charge separation in POPT:EV-BT devices. Our results emphasize the importance of donor/acceptor pair interactions and its effect on charge separation, processes in polymer solar cells. © 2010 American Chemical Society.
Citation:
Woo CH, Holcombe TW, Unruh DA, Sellinger A, Fréchet JMJ (2010) Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor. Chem Mater 22: 1673–1679. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cm903067a.
Publisher:
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Journal:
Chemistry of Materials
Issue Date:
9-Mar-2010
DOI:
10.1021/cm903067a
Type:
Article
ISSN:
0897-4756; 1520-5002
Sponsors:
This work was supported by the U S. Department of Energy under Contract No DE-AC02-05CH11231 and by the Center for Advanced Molecular Photovoltaics (Award No KUS-CI-015-21), supported by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) C H W and T.W.H thank the National Science Foundation For Fellowship support
Appears in Collections:
Publications Acknowledging KAUST Support

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorWoo, Claire H.en
dc.contributor.authorHolcombe, Thomas W.en
dc.contributor.authorUnruh, David A.en
dc.contributor.authorSellinger, Alanen
dc.contributor.authorFréchet, Jean M. J.en
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-25T13:54:22Zen
dc.date.available2016-02-25T13:54:22Zen
dc.date.issued2010-03-09en
dc.identifier.citationWoo CH, Holcombe TW, Unruh DA, Sellinger A, Fréchet JMJ (2010) Phenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptor. Chem Mater 22: 1673–1679. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cm903067a.en
dc.identifier.issn0897-4756en
dc.identifier.issn1520-5002en
dc.identifier.doi10.1021/cm903067aen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/599178en
dc.description.abstractThe solar cell performance of poly[3-(4-n-octyl)-phenylthiophene] (POPT) and poly(3hexylthiophene) (P3HT) are compared in devices using 4,7-bis(2-(l-(2-ethylhexyl)-4,5-dicyanoimidazol-2-yl)vinyi)benzo[c][l,2,5] -thiadiazole (EV-BT) as the electron acceptor. Despite their reduced light absorption, POPT:EV-BT devices generate higher photocurrents in both bilayer and bulk heterojunction (BHJ) architectures than analogous P3HT:EV-BT devices. Optimized POPT:EV-BT BHJ devices achieve 1.4% average efficiency, whereas the analogous P3HT devices only reach 1.1%. Morphology does not account for the large difference in performance as AFM studies of the active layer suggest, comparable levels of phase separation in the two systems. Reverse bias analysis demonstrates that P3HT devices have a higher maximum potential than POPT devices, but P3HT devices appear to be more severely limited by recombination losses under standard operating conditions. A possible explanation for the superior performance in POPT devices is that the pendant phenyl ring in POPT can twist out-of-plane and increase the separation distance with the acceptor molecule. A larger donor/acceptor separation distance can destabilize the geminate pair and lead to more efficient charge separation in POPT:EV-BT devices. Our results emphasize the importance of donor/acceptor pair interactions and its effect on charge separation, processes in polymer solar cells. © 2010 American Chemical Society.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the U S. Department of Energy under Contract No DE-AC02-05CH11231 and by the Center for Advanced Molecular Photovoltaics (Award No KUS-CI-015-21), supported by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) C H W and T.W.H thank the National Science Foundation For Fellowship supporten
dc.publisherAmerican Chemical Society (ACS)en
dc.titlePhenyl vs Alkyl Polythiophene: A Solar Cell Comparison Using a Vinazene Derivative as Acceptoren
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalChemistry of Materialsen
dc.contributor.institutionLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United Statesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of California System, Oakland, United Statesen
dc.contributor.institutionStanford University, Palo Alto, United Statesen
kaust.grant.fundedcenterCenter for Advanced Molecular Photovoltaics (CAMP)en
All Items in KAUST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.