Bithiopheneimide–Dithienosilole/Dithienogermole Copolymers for Efficient Solar Cells: Information from Structure–Property–Device Performance Correlations and Comparison to Thieno[3,4-<i>c</i>]pyrrole-4,6-dione Analogues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rational creation of polymeric semiconductors from novel building blocks is critical to polymer solar cell (PSC) development. We report a new series of bithiopheneimide-based donor-acceptor copolymers for bulk-heterojunction (BHJ) PSCs. The bithiopheneimide electron-deficiency compresses polymer bandgaps and lowers the HOMOs--essential to maximize power conversion efficiency (PCE). While the dithiophene bridge progression R(2)Si→R(2)Ge minimally impacts bandgaps, it substantially alters the HOMO energies. Furthermore, imide N-substituent variation has negligible impact on polymer opto-electrical properties, but greatly affects solubility and microstructure. Grazing incidence wide-angle X-ray scattering (GIWAXS) indicates that branched N-alkyl substituents increased polymer π-π spacings vs linear N-alkyl substituents, and the dithienosilole-based PBTISi series exhibits more ordered packing than the dithienogermole-based PBTIGe analogues. Further insights into structure-property-device performance correlations are provided by a thieno[3,4-c]pyrrole-4,6-dione (TPD)-dithienosilole copolymer PTPDSi. DFT computation and optical spectroscopy show that the TPD-based polymers achieve greater subunit-subunit coplanarity via intramolecular (thienyl)S···O(carbonyl) interactions, and GIWAXS indicates that PBTISi-C8 has lower lamellar ordering, but closer π-π spacing than does the TPD-based analogue. Inverted BHJ solar cells using bithiopheneimide-based polymer as donor and PC(71)BM as acceptor exhibit promising device performance with PCEs up to 6.41% and V(oc) > 0.80 V. In analogous cells, the TPD analogue exhibits 0.08 V higher V(oc) with an enhanced PCE of 6.83%, mainly attributable to the lower-lying HOMO induced by the higher imide group density. These results demonstrate the potential of BTI-based polymers for high-performance solar cells, and provide generalizable insights into structure-property relationships in TPD, BTI, and related polymer semiconductors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".