
Web Release Date: July 3,
Hyperbranched Conjugated Polyelectrolyte Bilayers for Solar-Cell Applications
Department of Chemistry, Center for Macromolecular Science and Engineering, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117200, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7200
Received May 7, 2007
Abstract:
Cationically and anionically charged hyperbranched conjugated polyelectrolytes (HB-CPEs) PNMe3+ and PSO3- have been synthesized via the Heck coupling method using A3 + B2 type approach. Both HB-CPEs are highly fluorescent and soluble in polar organic solvents allowing processing to electrostatic adsorption. TiO2 hybrid solar cells have been fabricated with the HB-CPEs as sensitizers. The self-assembled bilayer HB-CPE films show higher overall efficiencies when compared to their respective monolayers
Conjugated polyelectrolytes (CPEs) have been proposed as
energy and charge transporting materials for a number of potential
applications which include polymer light emitting diodes1 and
polymer photovoltaic cells.2 With their polyelectrolyte nature, CPEs
can be self-assembled by alternating adsorption of anionic and
cationic polyelectrolytes, or related dendritic macromolecules, at
interfaces.3,4
Here, we report a new family of materials which combine the properties of both CPEs and HBPs. This work demonstrates a first example of the synthesis of hyperbranched conjugated polyelectrolytes (HB-CPEs), their self-assembly and application involving ionic hyperbranched conjugated polymer sensitized TiO2 solar cells. The self-assembly driven by ionic interactions of oppositely charged HB-CPEs results in an increased chromophore concentration. This allows enhanced optical density and efficient light harvesting and possibly facilitates an enhanced energy and charge migration in the hybrid cell. The structures of both anionic (PSO3-) and cationic (PNMe3+) HB-CPEs are shown in the graphic.
The synthesis of these hyperbranched polymers was performed using the A3 + B2 type approach based on Heck polycondensation.8 The monomer and polymer syntheses are detailed in the Supporting Information (SI). The polymers are readily soluble in polar organic solvents including MeOH, DMF, and DMSO and are partially soluble in water and insoluble in acetone, THF, and chloroform. The purpose of conjugating thiophene and triphenylamine vinylene groups is to allow spectral broadening for enhanced visible light absorption, thereby potentially increasing the amount of charge injected into the TiO2. In addition to the electronic band gap, the HB-CPEs can be self-assembled into bilayer structures to further enhance the optical density allowing efficient excited-state charge transfer to the TiO2 acceptor while ensuring that the photo-oxidized polymer is easily reduced by the electrolyte.
The HB-CPEs were characterized using NMR, FTIR, and
viscometry techniques (SI). Pulsed gradient spin echo (PSGE) NMR
was used to estimate the HB-CPE molecular weights which yielded
M = 3500 Da for the PNMe3+ and M = 3200 Da for PSO3- (details
in SI), and these low values may account for their propensity to
penetrate into the TiO2. The molecular weights are within the range
as reported earlier for non-ionic HB polymers synthesized via Heck
coupling.8b It should be noted that this method does not provide
any information on polydispersity, and GPC was not carried out
owing to solvent incompatibility. The intrinsic viscosity [
] was
determined to be 0.15 and 0.11 for PSO3- and PNMe3+, respectively
(SI Figure S3). It was found that even with the addition of salt the
HB-CPEs expand their hydrodynamic volumes, resulting in the
observed viscosity increase indicating a positive polyelectrolyte
effect.9
The photophysical results, summarized in Table 1
, show both
PSO3- and PNMe3+ to be fluorescent (SI Figure S4A) and have
similar photophysical properties. The normalized absorption and
fluorescence spectra of PSO3- and PNMe3+ in methanol and water
are shown in SI Figure S4B. This pair of solvents was selected on
the basis of our previous work on linear conjugated polyelectrolytes,
which indicates that MeOH is a "good solvent" (i.e., the polymers
exist in an isolated state with minimal aggregation) and H2O is a
"poor solvent" (i.e., the polymers exist as aggregates).2a,10 Compared
to MeOH, aqueous solutions of the polymers exhibit a broader
absorption spectrum with a blue-shifted band max, decreased molar
extinction coefficient, and a red-shifted fluorescence spectrum with
a much decreased quantum yield. The time-resolved fluorescence
was measured at wavelengths corresponding closely to the fluorescence maximum, and the decay curves were sufficiently fitted
with two exponential terms. In all cases, the decays are characterized
by a large amplitude, short-lifetime component (~90%, ~1.4 ns),
and a low-amplitude component (~10%) with a lifetime of >10
ns. On the basis of these photophysical properties, it is reasonable
to speculate that both polymers are expanded (well solvated) in a
good solvent such as methanol and collapsed (poorly solvated) in
a poor solvent such as water.
The ground-state oxidation potentials of the PNMe3+ and PSO3-
are 0.5 and 0.4 V versus saturated calomel electrode (SCE),
respectively [estimated by differential pulse voltammetry (DPV)
in conjunction with cyclic voltammetry (CV)], compared to that
of the oxidation potential (0.1 V versus SCE) of the redox pair
I-/I3-.11 The excited-state oxidation potentials are -1.7 and -1.8
V versus SCE, as calculated by E(P*/P+) = E(P/P+) - E(P*), where
E(P/P+) is the potential of the polymers and E(P*) is the energy of
the relaxed singlet sate as estimated from the fluorescence
max
values of HB-CPE films. The excited-state oxidation potentials of
PNMe3+ and PSO3- are sufficiently negative of the TiO2 conduction
band (-0.42 V versus SCE), such that charge injection into the
semiconductor is anticipated to be efficient.12 This indicates that
there is an energetic driving force for the electron and hole
separation within a TiO2/HB-CPE regenerative photochemical cell
in which the HB-CPE operates as the light absorbing material.
Nanostructured TiO2 solar cells with adsorbed layers of HB-CPEs were fabricated as monolayers and self-assembled bilayers with the latter shown schematically (details in SI) in Figure 1A. For clarity we have only shown the comparison of incident photon to electron conversion efficiencies (IPCE) and current density-voltage (J-V) characteristics of monolayer PSO3- and self-assembled PSO3-/PNMe3+ bilayer sensitized TiO2 cells in Figure 1B/C. It is immediately evident that the bilayer cell yields a higher IPCE and Jsc than the monolayer cell.
This is confirmed in SI Figure S5 for IPCE and J-V for
monolayer PNMe3+ and self-assembled bilayer PNMe3+/PSO3-,
where PNMe3+ is the first layer monolayer deposited on the TiO2.
Table 2
details a comparative analysis of both monolayers and
bilayers.
The cells with only a monolayer of either HB-CPE have nearly
identical IPCE values, however PSO3- results in a higher
due to
an enhanced FF and Jsc when compared to PNMe3+. This is likely
due to the sulfonate groups which can coordinate to TiO2 in a similar
manner to -COOH groups13 promoting forward interfacial electron
transfer and reducing the number of trap sites.11b The same argument
can be made when forming the bilayer PSO3-/PNMe3+ cell, where
PSO3- is the first layer as compared to the bilayer of PNMe3+/PSO3-. Nevertheless, both bilayers show a superior response in
IPCE and overall efficiency compared to their respective monolayers owing to increased chromophore density causing more light
absorption in the bilayer as compared to either monolayer.
In conclusion, this study has led to the development of novel anionic and cationically charged HB-CPEs which could be utilized as polymer dyes coordinated to TiO2 and self-assembled into bilayers for solar-cell applications. The details of hybrid film structure using electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy will be reported in the future. Although the performance in terms of efficiency is lower compared to conventional cells, prospects are high for rapid improvement. Thus, these polymers and their self-assembly hold a viable promise for enhanced adhesion and energy harvesting properties for future hybrid solar cells and further investigation is underway.
The financial support for this work was provided by the DOE/BES (Grant DE-FG02-03ER15484).
Experimental, synthesis, and characterization details of monomers and HB-CPEs polymers. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
* In papers with more than one author, the asterisk indicates the name of the author to whom inquiries about the paper should be addressed.
1. (a) Kraft, A.; Grimsdale, A. C.; Holmes, A. B. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed.
Engl. 1998, 37, 402-428.
(b) Yang, R.; Wu, H.; Cao, Y.; Bazan, G. C.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128 (45), 14422-14423.
2. (a) Mwaura, J. K.; Zhao, X.; Jiang, H.; Schanze, K. S.; Reynolds, J. R.
Chem. Mater. 2006, 18 (26), 6109-6111.
(b) Coakley, K. M.; McGehee,
M. D. Chem. Mater. 2004, 16, 4533-4542.
(c) Yang, X.; Loos, J.
Macromolecules 2007, 40 (5), 1353-1362.
3. (a) Decher, G.; Lvov, Y.; Schitt, J. Thin Solid Films 1994, 244, 772-777.
(b) Clark, A. P.-Z.; Cadby, A. J.; Shen, C. K-F.; Rubin, Y.; Tolbert,
H. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110 (44), 22088-22096.
4. (a) Tsukruk, V. V.; Rinderspacher, F.; Bliznyuk, V. N. Langmuir 1997,
13 (8), 2171-2176.
(b) Tomalia, D. A.; Frechet, J. M. Prog. Polym. Sci.
2005, 30, 217-219.
5. (a) Fomine, S.; Fomina, L.; Guadarrama, P. Macromol. Symp. 2006, 192
(1), 43-62.
6. (a) Tomalia, D. A.; Naylor, A. M.; Goddard, W. A. Angew. Chem. 1990,
29, 138-175.
(c) Sun, M.; Bo,
Z. J. Poly. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2007, 45 (1), 111-124.
7. (a) Yang, J. L.; He, Q. G.; Lin, H. Z.; Fan, J. J.; Bai, F. L. Macromol.
Rapid Commun. 2001, 22, 1152-1157.
(b) Ramakrishna, G.; Ghosh, H.
N. J. Phys. Chem. A 2002, 106 (11), 2545-2553.
8. (a) Choi, J.-Y.; Tan, L.-S.; Baek, J.-B. Macromolecules 2006, 39 (26),
9057-9063.
(b) Tanaka, S.; Iso, T.; Sugiyama, J-I.; Takeuchi, K.; Ueda,
M. Synth. Met. 2005, 154, 125-128.
9. (a) Choi, J.-Y.; Tan, L.-S.; Baek, J.-B. Macromolecules 2006, 39 (26),
9057-9063.
(b) Baek, J.-B.; Tan, L. S. Macromolecules 2006, 39 (8),
2794-2803.
10. Jiang, H.; Zhao, X.; Schanze, K. S. Langmuir 2006, 22, 5541-5543.
11. (a) Lenzmann, F.; Krueger, J.; Burnside, S.; Brooks, K.; Gratzel, M.; Gal,
D.; Ruhle, S.; Cahen, D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105, 6347-6352.
(b)
Ramakrishna, G.; Ghosh, H. N. Langmuir 2003, 19 (3), 505-508.
12. (a) Palomares, E.; Clifford, J. N.; Haque, S. A.; Lutz, T.; Durrant, J. R.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125 (2), 475-482.
(b) Staniszewski, A.; Morris,
A. J.; Ito, T.; Meyer, G. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 6822-6828.
13. Krebs, F. C.; Spanggaard, H. Chem. Mater. 2005, 17 (21), 5235-5237.
|
HB-CPEs |
|
|
quantum
yield %
|
lifetime
( |
|
PNMe3+ in MeOH |
447, (2.4 × 104) |
555 |
6.0 |
1.3 (91%); 15.8 (9%) |
|
PNMe3+ in H2O |
425, (1.9 × 104) |
590 |
0.5 |
1.5 (89%); 13.9 (11%) |
|
PSO3- in MeOH |
405, (2.1 × 104) |
540 |
8 |
1.4 (92%); 15.7 (8%) |
|
PSO3- in H2O |
403, (1.5 × 104) |
570 |
0.4 |
1.2 (89%); 11.0 (11%) |
|
structure |
Voc V |
Jsc mA/cm2 |
FF |
|
IPCE |
|
PSO3- |
0.42 |
2.7 |
0.51 |
0.57 |
37% |
|
PSO3-/PNMe3+ |
0.42 |
4.1 |
0.36 |
0.62 |
55% |
|
PNMe3+ |
0.43 |
2.1 |
0.35 |
0.33 |
38% |
|
PNMe3+/ PSO3- |
0.48 |
3.2 |
0.36 |
0.55 |
44% |
a IPCE @400 nm.