MRS Fall 2017 Symposium: Organic Semiconductors—Surface, Interface, Bulk Doping, and Charge Transport
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Fall Meeting of the Materials Research Society (MRS), held annually in Boston, is the prime venue for researchers from around the world to discuss the latest advances and developments in materials science and beyond.The 2017 meeting hosted awith over 200 abstracts exceptionally well attended, five day symposium dedicated to doping and charge transport of organic semiconductors (OSCs).The symposium brought together current theoretical and experimental viewpoints from physics, chemistry, and materials science, examining both the fundamental processes underlying the doping of OSCs, as well as pathways to capitalize on their potential in organic electronics.23 invited speakers from 10 different countries (Table 1) led a stimulating interdisciplinary discussion in 7 clear-cut thematic sessions, with a further 68 contributed talks and 118 posters shown within two poster events.The thematic sessions covered both subject areas that were fundamental in nature, such as structure-property relationships, synthetic aspects, interface vs bulk doping, as well as topics with an explicit application focus, such as well-established but also emerging areas like organic photovoltaics and transistors, perovskite solar cells, thermoelectrics, electrochemical transistors, electrochromic devices, organic electronic textiles, etc.Karl Leo opened the symposium by providing a comprehensive overview of key aspects of OSCs, and their application in organic electronics, starting with a recent study on exploiting charge-transfer absorptions in near-infrared photodetectors, 1 and discussing new insights into the role of disorder for charge separation in doped OSCs after initial charge transfer. 2He further highlighted the role of (deep) traps and discussed the processes of trap filling for both n-and pdoping 3 a recurring topic of the symposium.Nobuo Ueno discussed general aspects of gap states in OSCs, as studied by high-sensitivity photoelectron spectroscopy, 4 and Frank Ortmann presented novel aspects of n-doping C 60 by combining direct and (low-energy) inverse photoelectron spectroscopy with theoretical modeling.Ortmann proposed the energy difference between the electron affinity of the pristine OSC and the ionization energy of the n-doped material as the key parameter for the doping process. 5Novel strategies for n-doping OSCs and, in particular, for overcoming the intrinsic susceptibility of n-dopants to oxidation were discussed in detail by Stephen Barlow, Xin Lin, and Antoine Kahn, who all reported the successful photoactivation of cleavable airstable dimeric dopants to allow for high efficiency OLEDs. 6nvironmental stability and the (unintentional) doping of OSCs by impurities were addressed by Mark Nikolka, who presented a study on organic field-effect transistors (OFETs) that not only identified the detrimental role of water incorporated into voids of the active layer but also demonstrated how to overcome this effect by substituting water with inert molecular additives. 7Henning Sirringhaus deepened this discussion and presented recent work on the interplay between microstructure and carrier mobility in conjugated polymers and the role of water as a trap in pchannel transistors.Altering the peripheral substitution pattern allows for high-mobility OFETs, 8 as does the close stacking of copolymer backbones. 9n general, the microstructure of doped OSCs was a leitmotif of numerous contributions in the symposium.In this regard, Alberto Salleo and Adam Moulédiscussed the prototypical system of poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) sequentially doped with 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ), 10,11 an approach likewise reported by Dieter Neher who employed a strong Lewis acid. 12In all cases, they reported sequential doping to be a reliable pathway for overcoming solubility issues and achieving doped polymer films of superior morphology.Notably, based on inelastic neutron scattering and theoretical modeling, Mouléproposed a structural motif for F4TCNQ-doped P3HT with dopants intercalated between the polymer chains. 13Improved dopant
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».