Comparative Interface Metrics for Metal-Free Monolayer-Based Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first quantitative comparison between self-assembled monolayers of homologous carboxylate- and phosphonate-terminated organic dyes that are of use in dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs) is reported. (Cyanovinyl)phosphonate-terminated oligothiophenes and (cyanovinyl)carboxylate-terminated oligothiophenes were synthesized on TiO(2) thin film electrodes. Structurally analogous organics were compared for the effect of the anchoring groups on photochemical properties in solution as measured by UV/vis spectroscopy and for reactivity with the electrode surface. Monolayers were grown on the TiO(2) electrodes either by "tethering by aggregation and growth" (T-BAG) or by solution dipping. Surface roughness and homogeneity, elemental composition, and thickness of the monolayers were evaluated by atomic force microscopy (AFM), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and ellipsometry. Molecular loadings for each monolayer on TiO(2) were quantified by quartz crystal microgravimetry (QCM), and the stability of bonding between each class of dyes and the TiO(2) was evaluated by measuring desorption, also by QCM; the carboxylates underwent significant dissociation in aqueous media but the phosphonates did not. DSSCs were prepared from each congener and from simple oligothiophene phosphonates to determine the effect of the cyanovinyl group on device behavior; all DSSCs were studied under irradiation from a AM 1.5G solar light source; the effect of cyanovinyl group termination was comparable to that of adding a thiophene moiety, and the DSSC using a self-assembled monolayer of (sexithiophene)phosphonate (6TP) had total power conversion efficiency (η) of ca. 5%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".