Use of a Ruthenium-Containing Conjugated Polymer as a Photosensitizer in Photovoltaic Devices Fabricated by a Layer-by-Layer Deposition Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multilayer polymer films composed of a ruthenium terpyridine complex containing poly( p -phenylenevinylene) ( Ru − PPV ) and sulfonated polyaniline ( SPAN ) were prepared by a layer-by-layer electrostatic self-assembly deposition. The deposition process was carried out from SPAN solution in water and Ru − PPV in dimethylformamide (DMF). Optical-quality multilayer thin films were obtained. The film growth process was monitored by quartz crystal microbalance, and the surface morphology of the films was studied by atomic force microscopy. It was found that the properties of the multilayer films were dependent on deposition conditions such as the pH of the SPAN solution, the presence of salt in the polymer solutions, and the post-film-forming thermal annealing process. Cross-section transmission electron microscopic images suggested that there was no stratified structure formed in the multilayer films. Photovoltaic cells were fabricated by sandwiching the multilayer films between indium−tin-oxide and aluminum electrodes. The device performances were examined by illumination with AM 1.5 simulated solar light. The power conversion efficiencies of these devices were on the order of 10 - 3 %. The maximum incident photon-to-electron conversion efficiency (IPCE) of the devices was found to be approximately 2% at 510 nm, which is consistent with the absorption maximum of the ruthenium complex. This indicates that the photosensitization process is due to the electronic excitation of the ruthenium complex.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".