How charge trapping affects the conductivity of electrochemically doped poly(3-hexylthiophene) films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrochemical doping is an elegant method of controlling the doping level and charge carrier densities of conjugated polymer films and enhancing their thermoelectric figure of merit. Applying this doping technique to films of poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) results in conductivities with values as high as 200 S/cm. The stability of the doped films in the solid state can be probed by UV-vis-NIR spectroscopy. We found that the choice of the conducting salt in the liquid electrolyte exerts a strong influence over the conductivity. Using TBAPF6 and LiClO4 provides highest conductivities for P3HT films, while LiTFSI and TBABF4 show overall lower performance. This effect is also reflected in cyclic voltammetry measurements coupled with in situ spectroscopy. Overall lower reversibility upon multiplex cycling in LiTFSI and TBABF4 electrolytes suggests strong charge trapping effects, which one might attribute to a considerable fraction of charges (holes/ions) remaining in the films after charge/discharge cycles. The salts with stronger charge irreversibility in the electrochemistry experiments show the poorer solid state conductivities. Our conclusion is that one should carefully choose the electrolyte to ensure good percolation pathways and delocalized charge transport throughout doped films.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".