Lewis Acid Adducts of Narrow Band Gap Conjugated Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on the interaction of Lewis acids with narrow band gap conjugated copolymers containing donor and acceptor units. Examination of the widely used poly[(4,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl)cyclopenta-[2,1-b:3,4-b']dithiophene)-2,6-(diyl-alt-benzo[2,1,3]thiadiazole)-4,7-diyl] (1) shows weaker binding with B(C(6)F(5))(3) when compared with a small molecule that contains a cyclopenta-[2,1-b:3,4-b']dithiophene (CDT) unit flanked by two benzo[2,1,3]thiadiazole (BT) fragments. Studies on model compounds representative of 1, together with a comparison between B(C(6)F(5))(3) and BBr(3), indicate that the propensity for Lewis acid coordination is decreased because of steric encumbrance surrounding the BT nitrogen sites. These observations led to the design of chromophores that incorporate an acceptor unit with a more basic nitrogen site, namely pyridal[2,1,3]thiadiazole (PT). That this strategy leads to a stronger B-N interaction was demonstrated through the examination of the reaction of B(C(6)F(5))(3) with two small molecules bis(4,4-bis(hexyl)-4H-cyclopenta[2,1-b;3,4-b']dithiophene)-4,7-pyridal[2,1,3]thiadiazole (8) and bis{2-thienyl-(4,4-bis(hexyl)-4H-cyclopenta[2,1-b;3,4-b']dithiophene)}-4,7-pyridal[2,1,3]thiadiazole (9) and two polymer systems (poly[(4,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl)cyclopenta-[2,1-b:3,4-b']dithiophene)-2,6-diyl-alt-([1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4-c]pyridine)-4,7-diyl] (10) and poly[(4,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl)cyclopenta-[2,1-b:3,4-b']dithiophene)-2,6-diyl-alt-(4',7'-bis(2-thienyl)-[1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4-c]pyridine)-5,5-diyl] (11). From a materials perspective, it is worth pointing out that through the binding of B(C(6)F(5))(3), new NIR-absorbing polymers can be generated with band gaps from 1.31 to 0.89 eV. A combination of studies involving ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy and density functional theory shows that the narrowing of the band gap upon borane coordination to the pyridal nitrogen on PT is a result of lowering the energies of both the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the optically relevant fragments; however, the LUMO is decreased to a greater extent, thereby giving rise to the narrowing of the gap.
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) | 0.002 | 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".