Nonfullerene Polymer Solar Cells Reaching a 9.29% Efficiency Using a BODIPY-Thiophene Backboned Donor Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conjugated polymer donor containing BODIPY-thiophene dyads in the backbone, P(BdP-EHT), combined with a low bandgap nonfullerene acceptor ( SMDPP ) consisting of carbazole and diketopyrrolopyrrole units linked with a tetracyanobutadiene acceptor π-linker, was used to design bulk heterojunction polymer solar cells. After the optimization of the donor to acceptor weight ratio and solvent vapor annealing of the P(BdP-EHT): SMDPP active layer, the resulting polymer solar cell showed an overall power conversion efficiency of 9.29%, which is significantly higher than that for the polymer solar cell based on PC 71 BM (7.41%) processed under identical conditions. This improved power conversion efficiency is attributed to enhanced values of short circuit photocurrent and open circuit voltage, the better light harvesting efficiency of the P(BdP-EHT): SMDPP active layer in the near-infrared region, and the higher Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) energy level of the SMDPP as compared to PC 71 BM, combined. Moreover, energy loss in the device based on P(BdP-EHT): SMDPP active layer is significantly low (0.48 eV) as compared to P(BdP-EHT):PC 71 BM counterpart (0.78 eV). Since the P(BdP-EHT) consists of triple bond, a linker may be beneficial for the stability of the polymer solar cells.
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 | 0.001 |
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".