Synthesis of Polyaniline/Sulfonated Polyaniline (PANI:SPAN) Acid–Base Pair Mimicking PEDOT:PSS Intermolecular Structure as a Hole-Transporting Layer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conductive polymer made by in situ polymerization of polyaniline in sulfonated polyaniline (PANI:SPAN) was developed to emulate the acid–base interaction framework of PEDOT:PSS. The polymer is proposed as a low-cost alternative to both PEDOT:PSS and PANI:PSS for application as a hole-transport layer (HTL) in optoelectronic devices. Sulfonation of the emeraldine salt form of PANI (PANI-ES) was carried out using chlorosulfonic acid in chloroform, with 20 wt % yielding optimal substitution. Subsequent in situ polymerization in the presence of SPAN produced a green, water- and solvent-soluble PANI:SPAN powder. Acid–base interactions within the polymer were confirmed by vibrational spectroscopy. Conductivity measurements indicate that PANI:SPAN exhibits a sufficient electrical conductivity for HTL operation. UV photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) analysis further reveals that the work function of PANI:SPAN closely matches that of PANI-ES. This alignment ensures effective hole extraction and transport, supporting its functionality as a charge-selective layer. The HTL properties of PANI:SPAN were evaluated through electrical measurements and compared to those of PEDOT:PSS. The Schottky barrier height at the PANI:SPAN/n-cSi interface was 0.747 eV, slightly lower than the PEDOT:PSS/n-cSi value of 0.769 eV, indicating improved hole injection. The rectification ratio (RR) of the PANI:SPAN/n-cSi device also exceeded that of the PEDOT:PSS counterpart, confirming the enhanced diode performance. These findings highlight the potential of PANI:SPAN as a processable and stable HTL material with favorable surface energetics and electronic characteristics. This study provides insight into acid–base polymer interactions and presents a viable alternative for next-generation conductive polymers in optoelectronic interface engineering.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".