Effect of trichlorobenzene additive on the performance and morphology of polyfluorene and fullerene derivative bulk heterojunction solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The influence of additive, namely 1,3,5‐trichlorobenzene (TCB), on the morphology and performance of bulk heterojunction (BHJ) organic solar cells was studied based on a 1:2 (w/w) blend of benzothiadiazole/thiophene‐based copolymers (PFTBzTT) to [6,6]‐phenyl‐C61 butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM). The active layers were deposited by spin‐coating from solutions using chloroform, with different additive concentrations from 0 to 36 mg/ml. The addition of solvent additive into the polymer solution was able to improve the performance of BHJ solar cells. The maximum power conversion efficiency (%PCE) of 0.85% was obtained for a cell with the TCB concentration of 12 mg/ml after annealing at 180°C for 20 min. From atomic force microscopy (AFM) images, the films processed without TCB appear smoother than those with the TCB additive. A large extent of segregation was also observed in the films processed with a high TCB concentration. The optical images of the thin films suggest that the optimum concentrations of the additive cause the polymer self‐organisation, resulting in some aggregation of large PCBM crystals. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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 | 0.001 | 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".