Microstructure and heteroatom dictate the doping mechanism and thermoelectric properties of poly(alkyl-chalcogenophenes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heteroatom substitution can favorably alter electronic transport in conductive polymers to improve their thermoelectric performance. This study reports the spectroscopic, structural, and thermoelectric properties of poly(3–(3′,7′-dimethyloctyl) chalcogenophenes) or P3RX doped with 2,3,5,6-tetrafluoro-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane (F4TCNQ), where the heteroatom [X = thiophene (T), selenophene (Se), tellurophene (Te)], the doping methodology, and extent of doping are systematically varied. Spectroscopic measurements reveal that while all P3RX polymers are appreciably doped, the doping mechanism is inherently different. Poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT, used as a control) and poly(3–(3′,7′-dimethyloctyl)tellurophene) (P3RTe) are doped primarily via integer charge transfer (ICT), whereas poly(3–(3′,7′-dimethyloctyl)selenophene) (P3RSe) and poly(3–(3′,7′-dimethyloctyl)thiophene) (P3RT) are doped via charge transfer complex (CTC) mechanisms. Despite these differences, all polymers saturate with roughly the same number of F4TCNQ counterions (1 dopant per 4 to 6 heterocycles), reinforcing the idea that the extent of charge transfer varies with the doping mechanism. Grazing incidence wide-angle x-ray scattering measurements provide insight into the structural driving forces behind different doping mechanisms—P3RT and P3RSe have similar microstructures in which F4TCNQ intercalates between the π-stacked backbones resulting in CTC doping (localized carriers), while P3HT and P3RTe have microstructures in which F4TCNQ intercalates in the alkyl side chain region, giving rise to ICT doping (delocalized carriers). These structural and spectroscopic observations shed light on why P3HT and P3RTe obtain electrical conductivities ca. 3 S/cm, while P3RT and P3RSe have conductivities <10−3 S/cm under the same thin film processing conditions. Ultimately, this work quantifies the effects of heteroatom, microstructural ordering, extent of doping, and doping mechanism, thereby providing rational guidance for designing future thermoelectric polymer-dopant systems.
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".