<scp><i>N</i></scp>‐Annulated perylene diimide dimers and tetramer non‐fullerene acceptors: impact of solvent processing additive on their thin film formation behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND We aim to determine whether the rationale of designing a tetrameric non‐fullerene acceptor (NFA) to minimize its aggregation compared to its dimer counterparts proves to be a valid strategy in the context of organic photovoltaic (OPV) processing involving solvent additives. We investigate the impact of the molecular design and the processing additive on the thin film formation behavior of four N ‐annulated perylene diimide (NPDI x ) derivatives. We compare three dimers and a tetramer, processed from a solution containing 1,8‐diiodooctane (DIO), which are used as NFAs and as a processing solvent additive, respectively, in the OPV fabrication. RESULTS We prepared OPV devices using the PTB7‐Th:NPDI x model system and rationalized the change in their power conversion efficiency (PCE) based on the thin film morphology of the four NDPI x compounds. While the PCE of the OPV devices prepared using the dimers and 1% (v/v) DIO showed a 20–30% drop, those prepared using the tetramer and the same processing conditions showed an 80% drop. Our analysis demonstrates that DIO processing solvent additive‐induced crystallization of the tetramer is the cause of its low performance in OPV devices. CONCLUSION Our results highlight that relying solely on the tetramer perylene diimide design strategy to prevent the aggregation observed in dimers is not always reliable when processing solvent additives are used in the OPV fabrication. Both the molecular design and the processing solvent additive impact the aggregation behavior of the NFA and need to be taken into account to optimize OPV devices active layer morphology. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".