Premium
Evaluating Thiophene Electron‐Donor Layers for the Rapid Assessment of Boron Subphthalocyanines as Electron Acceptors in Organic Photovoltaics: Solution or Vacuum Deposition?
Author(s) -
Josey David S.,
Castrucci Jeffrey S.,
Dang Jeremy D.,
Lessard Benoît H.,
Bender Timothy P.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
chemphyschem
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.016
H-Index - 140
eISSN - 1439-7641
pISSN - 1439-4235
DOI - 10.1002/cphc.201402751
Subject(s) - thiophene , photovoltaics , boron , electron acceptor , organic solar cell , deposition (geology) , photochemistry , chemistry , electron donor , electron , vacuum deposition , chemical engineering , inorganic chemistry , materials science , analytical chemistry (journal) , nanotechnology , thin film , organic chemistry , photovoltaic system , polymer , catalysis , ecology , paleontology , physics , quantum mechanics , sediment , biology , engineering
In this study, we consider the choice of a standard electron‐donating material to be paired with boron subphthalocyanines (BsubPcs) to rapidly assess the viability of new BsubPc derivatives as electron‐accepting materials within organic photovoltaic devices (OPVs). Specifically, we evaluate the effectiveness of solution‐cast poly(3‐hexylthiophene‐2,5‐diyl) (P3HT) as an electron donor paired with BsubPc derivatives relative to vacuum‐deposited sexithiophene (α‐6T). By using fullerene (C 60 ), boron subphthalocyanine chloride (Cl‐BsubPc), and hexachloro boron subphthalocyanine chloride (Cl‐Cl 6 BsubPc) as electron acceptors, we find that devices made with α‐6T outperform those with P3HT. However, the two thiophene‐based materials show the same performance trends. Given the preservation of these trends, we can recommend either option for assessing the potential of new BsubPc derivatives; P3HT as a solution‐cast electron‐donor layer or α‐6T as a vacuum‐deposited alternative.