ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Porphyrin–Anthracene Complexes: Potential in Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

Porphyrin–Anthracene Complexes: Potential in Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 58 Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 34, 19018–19026
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b06298
Published August 9, 2016

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Triplet–triplet annihilation photon upconversion (TTA-UC) systems contain both an absorbing and an emitting molecule, the sensitizer and annihilator, respectively. Through a series of energy-transfer steps, two low frequency photons can be combined into one high frequency photon. In organic solvents, the required energy transfer steps are limited by diffusion and are relatively efficient. In solid-state systems, however, the diffusion is slower, which usually results in lower efficiencies for these systems. An interesting way around this is to connect the sensitizer and annihilator. In order to increase understanding of the TTA-UC process in supramolecular systems, we synthesized four pyridine-substituted anthracene annihilators capable of coordinating axially to a zinc octaethylporphyrin sensitizer with a maximum binding constant of 6000 M–1 in toluene. This is a first example of a sensitizer–annihilator coordination complex for TTA-UC. Both the upconversion efficiency and the parasitic quenching of excited annihilator singlets by the sensitizer through Förster resonant energy transfer (FRET) were studied. On the basis of the findings herein, possible strategies for future supramolecular TTA systems with minimized FRET quenching are discussed.

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Energy transfer in porphyrin–chromophore assemblies have been long studied. The interest stems from nature’s way, in photosynthesis, of using antenna structures to funnel absorbed photon energy to a reaction site. This concept has been employed in many photochemical systems, (1, 2) and it is perhaps surprising that little attention has been focused on utilizing this for sensitized triplet–triplet annihilation (TTA) photon upconversion.
The process of generating high energy photons from two low energy photons is commonly known as photon upconversion (UC). Photon upconversion through TTA of organic chromophores, which can generate upconverted emission from incoherent low intensity light, (3-9) has been suggested (10-13) and, to some extent, demonstrated to be a viable means of utilizing sub-band-gap photons in solar energy applications. (14-21)
Typically, triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion occurs in a bimolecular system containing a triplet sensitizer, commonly palladium or platinum porphyrins, and an annihilator species, typically polyaromatic molecules. The process is described in Figure 1. First, a low energy photon is absorbed by the sensitizer (S), which readily undergoes intersystem crossing (ISC) to form its first excited triplet state (3S*). Subsequently, the triplet state of the annihilator (3A*) is populated through a triplet-energy transfer (TET) process from the sensitizer. Two triplet excited annihilators then interact and undergo TTA, and this might result in the formation of one singlet excited annihilator (1A*) and one annihilator in the ground state (1A). The singlet excited annihilator subsequently relaxes to the ground state through fluorescence, emitting a photon of higher frequency than the ones initially absorbed.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Jablonski diagram explaining the triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion process. A sensitizer first absorbs a low energy photon and rapidly populates its first triplet excited state after ISC from the singlet state. The triplet energy is then transferred to an annihilator species through TET, generating one triplet excited annihilator molecule. When two triplet excited annihilator molecules come together they can undergo TTA to form a singlet excited annihilator which can deactivate to its ground state by emitting a photon. If the sensitizer and annihilator are in close proximity, e.g., when connected, a new deactivation pathway is possible, namely singlet energy transfer of the excited singlet annihilator, short-circuiting the system.

In solution, with suitable concentrations, the energy-transfer steps required for TTA-UC are efficient. For example, the triplet energy transfer from sensitizer to annihilator can be almost quantitative with a large excess of the annihilator. For applications, solid-state TTA-UC systems are required, and the general direction of the field is, thus, toward such systems. However, in solid-state materials the energy-transfer steps are not as straightforward to control, and therefore, it is important to study sensitizer–annihilator assemblies. (22) For example, Kimizuka and co-workers have recently presented an elegant way of enhancing the triplet-migration and subsequent TTA in metal–organic framworks (MOFs) leading to near-unit TTA efficiency. (23, 24) However, the TET from sensitizer to the annihilator in these studies was not as efficient as in solution-dissolved systems, and further optimization of this energy-transfer step was suggested. (23, 24)
As TTA-UC requires energy transfer from a sensitizer to an annihilator, the idea of connecting the two to enhance the energy transfer in solid systems is not completely new, and examples of covalently linked sensitizer–annihilator dyads in solution exist in the literature. (25-28) However, these systems were less efficient than the corresponding nonconnected system due to quenching of the upconverted singlet excited state through energy transfer back to the sensitizer. Understanding the effect on TTA-UC in supramolecular sensitizer–annihilator assemblies is necessary for future applications that would require efficient, solid-state upconversion materials.
We have chosen to investigate a series of sensitizer–annihilator complexes, their upconversion properties, and the parasitic singlet energy transfer from annihilator back to the sensitizer. It has been suggested previously that axial coordination of anthracene to a Sn(IV) porphyrin excludes singlet energy transfer through Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) from the anthracene to porphyrin. (29) We therefore designed, synthesized, and studied four anthracene derivatives capable of axially coordinating to a zinc porphyrin and here present a first example of sensitizer–annihilator coordination complexes used for TTA-UC. The possible energy-transfer steps in the coordinated systems are schematically illustrated in Figure 1.
The annihilator species in the study are based on 9,10-diphenylanthracene (DPA), which is one of the benchmark annihilators. (21) Pyridine as a terminal group on one side of the phenylanthracene was chosen in order to achieve coordination of the nitrogen lone pairs to the zinc(II) octaethylporphyrin (ZnOEP) metal center. The terminal pyridine was separated from the anthracene moiety with 0, 1, 2, or 4 phenyl groups, Ph1–5AnPyr in Figure 2. For solubility reasons, Ph5AnPyr was modified with solubilizing 2-ethylhexyl side chains.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Molar absorptivity (solid) and normalized fluorescence (dashed) of the studied annihilators DPA (black), Ph1AnPyr (orange), Ph2AnPyr (blue), Ph3AnPyr (green), and Ph5AnPyr (red) and the sensitizer ZnOEP (gray).

As sensitizer, a metal porphyrin with a transition metal capable of bonding with the nitrogen lone pairs had to be used, and therefore, the standard palladium and platinum octaethylporphyrins commonly used with DPA could not be utilized. However, as zinc porphyrins also have relatively high triplet yields, 90%, (2, 30) the similar zinc(II) octaethylporphyrin (ZnOEP) was used. We show that upconverted emission is obtained for both coordinated and noncoordinated annihilators with ZnOEP, and we also study the unwanted singlet energy transfer from anthracene back to ZnOEP. Based on the results presented here, we also discuss the limiting factors in the present coordinating annihilator–sensitizer system and, thus, highlight design criteria for future annihilator–sensitizer coordination systems.

Experimental Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The synthetic route and detailed procedures to the new molecules Ph2–5AnPyr are described in the Supporting Information (Figure S1), including 1H and 13C NMR spectra (Figures S2–S19). Absorption spectra were recorded on a Cary 4000 spectrophotometer. The binding constants of the anthracene derivatives to ZnOEP were determined from the changes in the absorption spectra during the titration of the annihilators by performing a single value decomposition (SVD) analysis (31) in MATLAB; for details, see the Supporting Information (Figures S20–S24).
Fluorescence quantum yields were determined in dilute (32) and degassed samples relative to DPA (Φf = 1.0 in degassed toluene) (33) in 1 cm quarts cuvettes. A Spex Fluorolog τ3 spectrofluorimeter (JY Horiba) was used to record steady-state emission spectra. Fluorescence lifetimes were determined on a time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) setup using a PicoQuant pulsed laser diode (377 nm) and a PMT detector (10000 peak counts in the top channel, 4096 channels) with an instrument response function fwhm of 64 ps.
Nanosecond transient absorptions measurements were performed on a home-built system with a Surelite Continuum Nd:YAG laser equipped with an OPO generating a 7 ns (fwhm), 537 nm pump beam. A quartz–halogen lamp equipped with a monochromator was used as the probe light, and a monochromator together with a five-stage PMT coupled to an oscilloscope was used for recording the transient. All photophysical measurements were carried out in analytical-grade toluene (99.99%) from Sigma-Aldrich as lower grade toluene resulted in a shift in the ZnOEP absorption similar to that of coordinated ZnOEP. Degassed samples used in the upconversion intensity study and transient absorption measurement were permanently sealed in Pyrex test tubes (d = 1 cm) after degassing following a freeze–pump–thaw procedure described in the Supporting Information.
Upconversion emission was recorded on above-mentioned Spex Fluorolog using a 532 nm green laser-pointer (Imax = 33.8 mW, A = 0.057 cm2) as the light source and a graduated neutral density filter to vary the intensity. For the viscous upconversion samples containing polystyrene a 532 nm green laser-pointer (Imax = 80 mW, A = 0.027 cm2) was used. The upconversion quantum yield (ΦUC) was determined by relative actionometry using Cresyl Violet in methanol (Φr = 0.54) (34) as the reference in accordance to eq 1(1)where Ai is the absorption at the excitation wavelength, Fi is the integrated corrected emission spectra in wavenumbers, Ii is the excitation intensity, and ηi is the refractive index of the solvent; subscripts x and r denote the sample and reference, respectively. The reference was measured at the highest excitation intensity in each measurements series. It is important to note that the maximum upconversion quantum yield is 50% as two low energy photons are consumed to produce one photon of higher energy.

Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

As observed previously, extending the DPA moiety in the para-position of one of the phenyl groups only alters the absorption and fluorescence characteristics to a minor extent. (35) As seen in Figure 2, the molar absorptivity increases with more phenyl groups and a new transition at higher energies than the characteristic DPA absorption is observed for the compounds with extended phenyl groups. The fluorescence quantum yield (Φf) in toluene is high for all derivatives (Table 1), although the derivatives with extended phenyl groups have slightly lower Φf, around 0.85.
Table 1. Photophysical Properties of Coordinating Annihilators in Degassed Toluene Solutions
compdΦfτf (ns)KB (M–1)
DPA1.0 (33)6.97 (35)0
Ph1AnPyr0.96 ± 0.020 (35)5.29 ± 0.012300
Ph2AnPyr0.85 ± 0.0193.55 ± 0.015900
Ph3AnPyr0.85 ± 0.0033.17 ± 0.015800
Ph5AnPyr0.86 ± 0.0523.33 ± 0.016000
Coordination to ZnOEP was confirmed by following the shift of the ZnOEP absorption toward the red while titrating the pyridine containing derivatives, Figures S21–S24. The observed shifts were similar to that of ZnOEP with pyridine. The titration data and fitting procedure is described in the Supporting Information. KB is around 6000 M–1 for the bridged compounds Ph2AnPyr, Ph3AnPyr, and Ph5AnPyr. Ph1AnPyr with the pyridine group directly on the anthracene unit has a lower binding constant of 2300 M–1 and as expected DPA showed no coordination to ZnOEP. Coordination was also confirmed by H1 NMR spectroscopy where the anisotropic effect of the porphyrin ring-current drastically shifts the pyridine proton signals upfield (Figures S16–S19).
The sensitizer–annihilator complex lifetime could be estimated from the binding constants. Assuming a diffusion limited association constant (109 M–1 s–1), a lifetime of ∼6 μs was estimated for a binding constant of 6000 M−1 (see the Supporting Information for details). Even for a smaller assumed association constant of 108 M–1 s–1, the lifetime, ∼60 μs, is shorter than the unperturbed excited triplet state lifetimes of ZnOEP (200 μs, see Supporting Information) and anthracene derivatives. (35) With a short complex lifetime of 6–60 μs, it is likely that triplet–triplet annihilation and subsequent upconverted emission do not occur from a bound anthracene derivative. This could be beneficial as the parasitic singlet energy transfer from the upconverted anthracene singlet through FRET is distance dependent and a dissociated anthracene is, therefore, less likely to be quenched by the sensitizer.
To study the UC efficiency of the coordinating annihilators, samples were prepared with a relatively high annihilator concentration (2.5 mM) and low sensitizer concentration (1 μM) resulting in ∼90% of the sensitizer bound to an annihilator. For solubility reasons, Ph3AnPyr could only be prepared in 0.23 mM with 1 μM ZnOEP (corresponding to 67% bound sensitizer). Efficient upconverted emission, ΦUC, from 3 to 20% (Figure 3), was observed from both coordinated and noncoordinated annihilators despite the increased chance of quenching of the annihilator singlet through FRET when connecting the sensitizer and annihilator. (25-28) There can be multiple explanations for why the coordinated systems show only minor upconversion quenching through FRET, one being the weak complexation and short complex lifetime allowing the TTA step to occur between unbound (dissociated) species. Figure 3 shows the upconversion emission intensity and upconversion quantum yield (ϕUC) dependence on excitation power density.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (Left) Upconverted emission plotted against excitation power (532 nm). (Right) Upconversion quantum yield. Samples of 1 μM ZnOEP sensitizer and 2.5 mM DPA (black squares), 2.5 mM Ph1AnPyr (orange diamonds), 2.5 mM Ph2AnPyr (blue circles), 0.23 mM Ph3AnPyr (green triangles), and 2.5 mM Ph5AnPyr (red open circles).

A decrease in the emission was observed for Ph1AnPyr compared to DPA even though they previously have been shown to perform similarly in noncoordinating systems. (35) The reason for this can be that a small fraction of the TTA events still occur for complexed annihilators, followed by efficient singlet state quenching.
Annihilators with longer bridges (Ph2–5AnPyr) display lower UC-emission intensity, even after considering the slightly lower Φf. As TET occurs at least equally as fast as for the unbound annihilator DPA, and the longer bridges would reduce the FRET quenching compared to the shorter Ph1AnPyr annihilator (vide infra), this decrease must originate from a less efficient TTA step, indicating that not every molecular collision between two triplet annihilators results in a TTA event yielding an excited singlet. This is also supported by the fact that the annihilators Ph2–5AnPyr reach the linear upconversion regime (36) at higher excitation intensities compared to DPA and Ph1AnPyr. Also, as for Ph1AnPyr, some TTA events could occur by annihilators complexed to ZnOEP, which then would lead to quenching of the singlet excited state of the annihilator prior to emission, thus leading to a lower UC emission compared to DPA.
In an attempt to decrease the diffusion-controlled energy transfer, samples with a more viscous sample environment and low annihilator concentration were prepared. Annihilator (0.1 mM) and sensitizer (0.1 mM) were dissolved in toluene together with polystyrene (255 mg/mL, Mw = 160000 Da). However, at these low concentrations less than 5% of the sensitizer is complexed to an annihilator, assuming that the complex formation is unaffected by the addition of polystyrene. In these samples, DPA and Ph1AnPyr display similar upconversion characteristics (Figure S25). The difference between the longer bridged annihilators is also smaller compared to the more concentrated low viscosity solutions (Figure S25).

Singlet Energy Transfer

To further understand the possible energy-transfer steps in the coordinating systems, the energy-transfer efficiency from a singlet excited anthracene derivative to a nearby ZnOEP was studied. This singlet energy transfer is expected to occur through FRET, where the anthracene moiety is the donor chromophore and ZnOEP the acceptor. Thus, the energy transfer from annihilator to sensitizer can be controlled by altering the donor–acceptor distance, the relative orientation, and the spectral overlap. Our choice of an axial anthracene ligand to the ZnOEP stemmed from the close to 90° angle expected between the acceptor and donor transition dipole moments. With a binding angle of 90°, singlet energy transfer through FRET would be prevented. In addition, the distance separating the donor and acceptor plays an important role, and both of these aspects were studied closer through careful analysis of the fluorescence quenching of directly excited anthracene in the presence and absence of the porphyrin acceptor.
The fluorescence decays were recorded for the anthracene derivatives (∼15 μM) alone and for the mixture of anthracene derivative (∼15 μM) and ZnOEP (0.14 mM). From these concentrations and the binding constants, the amount of complexed anthracene was calculated to ∼40% of the total annihilator concentration. In Figure 4, the fluorescence decays of Ph5AnPyr and Ph5AnPyr–ZnOEP are shown. As seen in Figure 4, Ph5AnPyr–ZnOEP shows a biexponential decay displaying two components, one being similar to the unbound Ph5AnPyr and an initial fast decay of 152 ps. The proportion of this fast decay to the overall decay is ∼40% suggesting that FRET occurs for all coordinated Ph5AnPyr molecules. This corresponds to a transfer efficiency of 96% for the complexed annihilators. Similarly, a fast decay of 27 ps for the Ph3AnPyr–ZnOEP complex was observed, and the faster fraction here corresponded to ∼30% of the total decay, Figure S26. For the shorter bridged systems Ph2AnPyr and Ph1AnPyr higher time resolution was required, and the lifetimes for these complexes were not determined.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Upper: Fluorescence decay for Ph5AnPyr (14 μM), alone (black) corresponding fit (green), with ZnOEP (140 μM) (blue), corresponding fit (red) and instrument response function (yellow). The bump at 2 ns for Ph5AnPyr alone (black), is due to the instrument response. Lower: Residual to the fitted decays,Ph5AnPyr, alone (black) and with ZnOEP (blue).

The efficiency of energy transfer through FRET (ηFRET) can be calculated from the lifetime of the donor–acceptor complex (τDA) and the donor alone (τD) according to eq 2. (37)(2)The FRET energy transfer efficiency can also be determined from eq 3(3)where r is the actual distance between donor–acceptor transition dipole moments and R0 (in Å) is the characteristic distance corresponding to 50% energy transfer. R0 is calculated from spectroscopic properties of the donor and acceptor by eq 4:(4)In eq 4, κ2 is an orientation factor (vide infra), n is the refractive index, ΦD is the fluorescence quantum yield of the donor, FD is the area normalized fluorescence of the donor, ϵA is the molar absorptivity (M–1 cm–1) of the acceptor, and λ is the wavelength (nm). The integral is called the spectral overlap integral and is often denoted J. (37)
The distance r in eq 3 was determined from the Zn atom to the center of the anthracene core from AM1-optimized geometries of the complexes (Figures S27–S30). From the singlet lifetime quenching data and combining eqs 2 and 3 we determined R0, Table 2, for Ph3AnPyr and Ph5AnPyr. This in turn allows for the experimental determination of the orientation factor, κ2, from eq 4, Table 2.
Table 2. Fluorescence Lifetimes (τDA), FRET Efficiency (ηFRET), Inter-chromophore Distance (r), Förster Distance R0, Orientation Factor (κ2), and Binding Angle for Coordinated Annihilators
compdτDA (ps)ηFRET (%)ra ÅR0 (Å)⟨κ2binding angleb (deg)
Ph1AnPyr<20>99.68.0   
Ph2AnPyr<20>99.412.2   
Ph3AnPyr27 ± 799.2 ± 0.217.3380.1975
Ph5AnPyr152 ± 1095.4 ± 0.325.0420.2971
a

Distance from Zn atom to center of anthracene core estimated from the AM1-optimized geometry of the complex.

b

Angle β in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Figure 5. (a) Angles between donor (blue) and acceptor (black) transition dipole moments used for calculating the orientation factor, κ2, for a donor–acceptor pair. (b) Transition dipole moment in anthracene derivatives (blue) and the degenerate transition dipole moments in ZnOEP are represented by two perpendicular transitions (green and black) spanning the porphyrin plane (orange). The y,z-plane is colored gray for clarity. Also illustrated are the angles relevant for the black transition dipole moment component in ZnOEP, β and γ. (c) As in b, now illustrating the angles relevant for the perpendicular dipole moment component (green arrow), β and γ.

Theoretically, κ2, lies between 0 and 4 and is related to the angles between the donor and acceptor transition dipole moments as in eq 5. The angle α is the angle between the transition dipole moment of the donor and the vector connecting the transition dipole moments of the donor and acceptor; the connecting vector is here defined as the x-axis in Figure 5. The angle β is the corresponding angle for the acceptor. γ is the angle between the acceptor and donor transition dipole moments when projected in the same plane. These angles are illustrated in Figure 5a. (37, 38)(5)
As the orientation factor is dependent on the angles between the donor and acceptor chromophores, apparent binding angles between Ph3–5AnPyr and ZnOEP can be estimated from κ2, Table 2. At room temperature, the dynamic complexation results in a distribution of angles, and the apparent binding angle can be viewed as a measure on how broad this distribution is. The more the apparent angle deviates from 90° the wider the distribution.
In 9,10-substituted anthracene, the transition dipole moment for the lowest electronic transition is located along the 9,10-carbons, but for a porphyrin the transition dipole moment for the lowest singlet transition is degenerate and oriented within the molecular plane (Figure 5). To calculate κ2 for a degenerate case where there is 4-fold symmetry one can represent the degenerate transition dipole moments as two perpendicular transition dipole moments and calculate the average ⟨κ2⟩ according to eq 6 (38)(6)were κ12 is the orientation factor calculated for an arbitrarily chosen transition dipole moment in the ZnOEP plane and κ2 is the orientation factor calculated for the perpendicular transition dipole moment. As can be seen in Figure 5b,c, when two perpendicular transition moment components are chosen to represent the degenerate transition one of them could be selected to lie perpendicular to the anthracene transition moment and then the other component will be defining the projection of the porphyrin plane on the anthracene transition moment (angle β).
Parts b and c of Figure 5 show the two perpendicular transition dipole moment components used here. Combining eqs 5 and 6 with the angles defined in Figure 5b,c and averaging over all azimuthal angles (i.e., rotating the porphyrin plane around the anthracene long-axis), one obtains eq 7(7)where β also corresponds to the apparent binding angle between the porphyrin plane and the annihilator transition moment. The calculated angles are 75° and 71° for Ph3AnPyr and Ph5AnPyr, respectively, Table 2. For a hypothetical binding angle of 90° no energy transfer through FRET would be observed.

Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

First, it is interesting to examine why no notable increase in upconversion efficiency was detected in the coordinating samples. As will be discussed, this does not rule out the usefulness of coordinating the annihilator to the sensitizer in better optimized, systems. The upconversion quantum yield, ΦUC is given by the product of the quantum yield of the triplet energy transfer (ΦTET), the triplet–triplet annihilation quantum yield of forming an excited singlet annihilator (ΦTTA), the intersystem crossing yield of the sensitizer (ΦISC), and the fluorescence quantum yield of the annihilator (Φf) as in eq 8:(8)
Since ΦISC is a property of the sensitizer, we assumed it to be the same in both the coordinated and the noncoordinated system. Therefore, the difference in efficiency must be explained by either a decrease in Φf, through singlet quenching of the annihilator, by a decrease in ΦTTA or by a less efficient triplet energy transfer step, (smaller ΦTET).
Considering that the UC efficiency decreases more the longer the bridge becomes, which is opposite to the trend for Φf, and that there is a large excess of free annihilator in the samples, we conclude that the quenching of the singlet annihilator is not the main bottleneck in the present systems. We have previously shown that DPA and Ph1AnPyr have very similar UC properties when a noncoordinating sensitizer is used, (35)suggesting that a lower ΦTTA is not the explanation to the difference between these two annihilators in the current system. This leaves the triplet energy transfer as the limiting step.
We determined the rate constant for triplet energy transfer through diffusion in toluene to 7.8 × 108 M–1 s–1 (Figure S31) from nanosecond transient absorption measurements of ZnOEP and DPA, the corresponding rate constant for platinum porphyrin is in the range of 2 × 109 M–1 s–1. This can be understood by the difference in triplet state energy of the sensitizer, which is lower for ZnOEP leading to a smaller driving force for TET. The triplet energy of ZnOEP is about 1.78 eV, (39) and we estimated the triplet energy for DPA and Ph1AnPyr to 1.72 and 1.73 eV, respectively. (35) Since the singlet energy of ZnOEP is lowered upon coordination to the annihilators (vide supra) it is also likely that the triplet energy level is affected, leading to a yet smaller driving force and, thus, less efficient TET. This can, of course, be circumvented in future systems using sensitizer and annihilator pairs with better matched triplet energies.
Therefore, it is interesting to consider the case when TET is efficient, in such coordinating systems there are two possible ways of triplet energy transfer; either through the usual collisional transfer pathway or energy transfer through the bridge of the coordinating annihilator. In order to observe a difference in UC properties for the coordinating samples the triplet energy transfer must increase ΦTET due to coordination. The energy-transfer efficiency from sensitizer to annihilator can be calculated from the fraction between the sensitizer triplet lifetime in presence and absence of annihilator (eq 9)(9)where τ0 is the lifetime of the sensitizer alone and τ is the lifetime of the sensitizer in the presence of the annihilator. From the Stern–Volmer equation, the ratio of the lifetime quenching can be calculated for various annihilator concentrations(10)where kTET is the rate constant for triplet energy transfer and [A] is the annihilator concentration. If we assume that in a coordinated sensitizer–annihilator pair the triplet energy transfer is faster than the triplet excited complex dissociation and therefore quantitative we can compare the fraction of coordinated ground-state sensitizers to the diffusional triplet energy transfer efficiency, ΦTET, for various annihilator concentrations, and this is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Calculated triplet energy transfer efficiency for diffusion-controlled energy transfer with a sensitizer lifetime of 200 μs (blue dashed) and 2 μs (blue dotted). The fraction of bound sensitizer calculated for KB = 6000 M–1 and sensitizer concentrations between 1 μM and 1 mM (black) as well as the fraction of bound sensitizer calculated for KB = 60000 M–1 and a sensitizer concentration of 1 μM (red).

In our present study, the maximum obtained binding constant is 6000 M–1, and in Figure 6 the fraction of bound sensitizer is shown for various sensitizer–annihilator concentrations. Compared to the diffusive energy-transfer efficiency the fraction of bound sensitizer is constantly lower. This means that, even in the case with quantitative TET in a coordination complex, no increase in ΦUC will be observed. There are two interesting conclusions from Figure 6. First, if the binding strength (KB) can be increased by a factor of 10, the static energy transfer in complexed sensitizer-annihilator pairs could compete with the diffusion limited case. This could possibly be achieved by changing to a binding group with higher affinity toward the zinc porphyrin core. Alternatively a porphyrin with another transition metal could be used which would form a stronger bond to pyridine, e.g., ruthenium porphyrins. (40) This conclusion is based on the fact that the dissociation of the excited complex is slower than the actual energy transfer and is supported by previous observations of energy and electron transfer from ruthenium and zinc porphyrins to pyridine–fullerene ligands to occur before complex dissociation. (41)
The second observation is that in the case where the sensitizer triplet lifetime is short the diffusive energy-transfer efficiency decreases markedly. This would be the case when more oxygen is present in the sample, and if the energy transfer in a coordination complex is fast, sensitization of the annihilator would be efficient even in the presence of oxygen. However, to result in TTA-UC in ambient atmosphere the rate of the TTA process must also be increased and examples of self-oriented and supramolecular structures where this is observed have been presented recently. (23, 24, 42-46) Combining sensitizer–annihilator complexes in larger supramolecular structures with increased TTA rate could therefore lead to efficient TTA-UC, possibly functioning in air.
One important optimization required for coupled sensitizer–annihilator structures is the minimization of the detrimental singlet energy transfer from the singlet excited annihilator to the sensitizer. (25-28) In our sensitizer–annihilator complexes this occurs through FRET and is therefore distance and orientation dependent, as described in eqs 3 and 4. (37)
To reduce the quenching in a FRET pair, the distance, the orientation, or the spectral overlap can be optimized. Our choice of an axial ligand was based on the close to 90° angle between the annihilator and porphyrin transition dipole moments which would attenuate the energy transfer. However, in the annihilator–sensitizer complexes presented herein efficient energy transfer to the porphyrin was still observed. One reason is the quite flexible dynamic complexation which results in an apparent binding angle of 71–75°. A stronger binding constant could also lead to a binding angle closer to 90°, but a total elimination of FRET by only increasing the binding strength is not likely.
Instead one also has to engineer the spacing between the sensitizer and the annihilator as well as the spectral overlap. Here we have studied compounds spaced from 8 to 25 Å. Extending the arm much further than 25 Å will be challenging and possibly not viable for future applications. Not only does the desired triplet energy transfer through the bridge become less efficient over longer distances but also the synthetic route becomes more demanding. Unfortunately we were not able to distinguish between any triplet energy transfer through the bridge and that occurring by normal diffusive TET either by steady state or nanosecond transient absorption measurements (Supporting Information, Figure S32).
An alternative to extending the spacing between the annihilator and sensitizer would be to use a polymeric or oligomeric annihilator structure allowing triplet migration between annihilator units with subsequent TTA further away from the sensitizer. Systems displaying triplet migration between arranged annihilators have been demonstrated recently (23, 24, 42-46) and as discussed above would also benefit the TTA, possibly resulting in TTA-UC materials functioning in air equilibrated solutions.
The spectral overlap integral, J, between the annihilators and the coordinated sensitizer is rather large in these systems, especially as coordination induces a red-shift in the ZnOEP absorption, and is determined to 1.16 × 1015 nm4 M–1 cm–1. This could be reduced substantially by either blue-shifting the porphyrin absorption by ∼20 nm or red-shifting the anthracene emission by a similar amount. We estimate the overlap integral to be reduced to in such a case, resulting in a FRET efficiency, ηFRET, of 67% in the case of a 25 Å spacer, corresponding to the Ph5AnPyr bridge. If this is combined with an orientation factor that is a tenth of that reported here for Ph5AnPyr an ηFRET of 17% would be possible.

Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

To conclude, we synthesized four 9,10-substituted anthracenes containing a pyridine substituent and assessed these pyridine-substituted anthracenes as annihilators in triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion (TTA-UC) systems. Using a zinc porphyrin (ZnOEP) as the sensitizer, we achieved the first sensitizer–annihilator coordination complex used for TTA-UC. We further studied the parasitic Förster resonance energy transfer from annihilator back to the sensitizer, which was found to be very efficient (>95%), contrary to what was previously observed for anthracene–Sn(IV) porphyrin systems. (29) Even though FRET was very efficient, upconverted emission was observed for all anthracene ligands.
From the findings here, we explore future design strategies for sensitizer–annihilator complexes. For one we propose that at least a 10 times stronger binding constant than the present 6000 M–1 would be necessary to achieve a reasonable sensitizer–annihilator complex concentration. We also suggest that sensitizer–annihilator coordination complexes can be beneficial in future supramolecular structures for TTA-UC functioning in air-equilibrated solutions or in solid matrices.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b06298.

  • Experimental procedures and characterization of new compounds as well as description of SVD analysis, corresponding spectroscopic data, time-resolved fluorescence, and transient absorption measurements (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Kasper Moth-Poulsen - Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 58 Gothenburg, Sweden Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Victor Gray - Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 58 Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Karl Börjesson - Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Damir Dzebo - Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 58 Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Maria Abrahamsson - Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 58 Gothenburg, Sweden
    • Bo Albinsson - Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 58 Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We acknowledge funding from the Swedish Energy Agency, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Strategic Research Council, and the Knut and Alice Walllenberg foundation.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 46 other publications.

  1. 1
    Kurreck, H.; Huber, M. Model reactions for photosynthesis-photoinduced charge and energy transfer between covalently linked porphyrin and quinone units Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 849 866 DOI: 10.1002/anie.199508491
  2. 2
    Andréasson, J.; Zetterqvist, H.; Kajanus, J.; Mårtensson, J.; Albinsson, B. Efficient non-radiative deactivation and conformational flexibility of meso-diaryloctaalkylporphyrins in the excited triplet state J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104, 9307 9314 DOI: 10.1021/jp0015574
  3. 3
    Islangulov, R. R.; Kozlov, D. V.; Castellano, F. N. Low power upconversion using MLCT sensitizers Chem. Commun. 2005, 1, 3776 3778 DOI: 10.1039/b506575e
  4. 4
    Baluschev, S.; Miteva, T.; Yakutkin, V.; Nelles, G.; Yasuda, a.; Wegner, G. Up-conversion fluorescence: Noncoherent excitation by sunlight Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 7 9 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.143903
  5. 5
    Baluschev, S.; Yakutkin, V.; Wegner, G.; Miteva, T.; Nelles, G.; Yasuda, A.; Chernov, S.; Aleshchenkov, S.; Cheprakov, A. Upconversion with ultrabroad excitation band: Simultaneous use of two sensitizers Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 181103 DOI: 10.1063/1.2734475
  6. 6
    Islangulov, R. R.; Lott, J.; Weder, C.; Castellano, F. N. Low-power upconversion in solid polymer films J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 12652 12653 DOI: 10.1021/ja075014k
  7. 7
    Baluschev, S.; Yakutkin, V.; Miteva, T.; Wegner, G.; Roberts, T.; Nelles, G.; Yasuda, A.; Chernov, S.; Aleshchenkov, S.; Cheprakov, A. A general approach for non-coherently excited annihilation up-conversion: Transforming the solar-spectrum New J. Phys. 2008, 10, 013007 DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/10/1/013007
  8. 8
    Singh-Rachford, T. N.; Castellano, F. N. Low Power Visible-to-UV Upconversion J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113, 5912 5917 DOI: 10.1021/jp9021163
  9. 9
    Ji, S.; Wu, W.; Wu, W.; Guo, H.; Zhao, J. Ruthenium(II) polyimine complexes with a long-lived 3IL excited state or a 3MLCT/3IL equilibrium: Efficient triplet sensitizers for low-power upconversion Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 1626 1629 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201006192
  10. 10
    Trupke, T.; Green, M. A.; Würfel, P. Improving solar cell efficiencies by up-conversion of sub-band-gap light J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 92, 4117 4122 DOI: 10.1063/1.1505677
  11. 11
    Ekins-Daukes, N. J.; Schmidt, T. W. A molecular approach to the intermediate band solar cell: The symmetric case Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 93, 063507 DOI: 10.1063/1.2970157
  12. 12
    de Wild, J.; Meijerink, A.; Rath, J. K.; van Sark, W. G. J. H. M.; Schropp, R. E. I. Upconverter solar cells: materials and applications Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 4835 DOI: 10.1039/c1ee01659h
  13. 13
    Briggs, J. a.; Atre, A. C.; Dionne, J. a. Narrow-bandwidth solar upconversion: Case studies of existing systems and generalized fundamental limits J. Appl. Phys. 2013, 113, 124509 DOI: 10.1063/1.4796092
  14. 14
    Cheng, Y. Y.; Fückel, B.; MacQueen, R. W.; Khoury, T.; Clady, R. G. C. R.; Schulze, T. F.; Ekins-Daukes, N. J.; Crossley, M. J.; Stannowski, B.; Lips, K. Improving the light-harvesting of amorphous silicon solar cells with photochemical upconversion Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 6953 DOI: 10.1039/c2ee21136j
  15. 15
    Schulze, T. F.; Cheng, Y. Y.; Fuckel, B.; MacQueen, R. W.; Danos, A.; Davis, N. J. L. K.; Tayebjee, M. J. Y.; Khoury, T.; Clady, R. G. C. R.; Ekins-Daukes, N. J. Photochemical upconversion enhanced solar cells: Effect of a back reflector Aust. J. Chem. 2012, 65, 480 485 DOI: 10.1071/CH12117
  16. 16
    Schulze, T. F.; Czolk, J.; Cheng, Y.-Y.; Fückel, B.; MacQueen, R. W.; Khoury, T.; Crossley, M. J.; Stannowski, B.; Lips, K.; Lemmer, U. Efficiency Enhancement of Organic and Thin-Film Silicon Solar Cells with Photochemical Upconversion J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 22794 22801 DOI: 10.1021/jp309636m
  17. 17
    Kim, J.-h.; Kim, J.-h. Encapsulated TTA-Based Upconversion in the Aqueous Phase for Sub-bandgap Semiconductor Photocatalysis Encapsulated TTA-Based Upconversion in the Aqueous Phase for Sub-bandgap Semiconductor Photocatalysis J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 17478 17481 DOI: 10.1021/ja308789u
  18. 18
    Khnayzer, R. S.; Blumhoff, J.; Harrington, J. a.; Haefele, A.; Deng, F.; Castellano, F. N. Upconversion-powered photoelectrochemistry Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 209 DOI: 10.1039/C1CC16015J
  19. 19
    Nattestad, A.; Cheng, Y.; Macqueen, R.; Schulze, T.; Thompson, F.; Mozer, A.; Fuckel, B.; Khoury, T.; Crossley, M.; Lips, K. Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell with Integrated Triplet Triplet Annihilation Upconversion System J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 2073 2078 DOI: 10.1021/jz401050u
  20. 20
    Börjesson, K.; Dzebo, D.; Albinsson, B.; Moth-Poulsen, K. Photon upconversion facilitated molecular solar energy storage J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 8521 8524 DOI: 10.1039/c3ta12002c
  21. 21
    Gray, V.; Dzebo, D.; Abrahamsson, M.; Albinsson, B.; Moth-Poulsen, K. Triplet-triplet annihilation photon-upconversion: towards solar energy applications Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 10345 52 DOI: 10.1039/c4cp00744a
  22. 22
    Yanai, N.; Kimizuka, N. Recent emergence of photon upconversion based on triplet energy migration in molecular assemblies Chem. Commun. 2016, 52, 5354 5370 DOI: 10.1039/C6CC00089D
  23. 23
    Mahato, P.; Monguzzi, A.; Yanai, N.; Yamada, T.; Kimizuka, N. Fast and long-range triplet exciton diffusion in metalorganic frameworks for photon upconversion at ultralow excitation power Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 924 930 DOI: 10.1038/nmat4366
  24. 24
    Mahato, P.; Yanai, N.; Sindoro, M.; Granick, S.; Kimizuka, N. Preorganized Chromophores Facilitate Triplet Energy Migration, Annihilation and Upconverted Singlet Energy Collection J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 6541 6549 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b01652
  25. 25
    Kozlov, D. V.; Castellano, F. N. Anti-Stokes delayed fluorescence from metal organic bichromophores Chem. Commun. 2004, 1, 2860 2861 DOI: 10.1039/B412681E
  26. 26
    Bergamini, G.; Ceroni, P.; Fabbrizi, P.; Cicchi, S. A multichromophoric dendrimer: from synthesis to energy up-conversion in a rigid matrix Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 12780 DOI: 10.1039/c1cc16000a
  27. 27
    Tilley, A. J.; Kim, M. J.; Chen, M.; Ghiggino, K. P. Photo-induced energy transfer in ruthenium-centred polymers prepared by a RAFT approach Polymer 2013, 54, 2865 2872 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2013.03.064
  28. 28
    Yu, S.; Zeng, Y.; Chen, J.; Yu, T.; Zhang, X.; Yang, G.; Li, Y. Intramolecular triplet-triplet energy transfer enhanced triplet-triplet annihilation upconversion with a short-lived triplet state platinum(II) terpyridyl acetylide photosensitizer RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 70640 70648 DOI: 10.1039/C5RA12579K
  29. 29
    Giribabu, L.; Ashok Kumar, A.; Neeraja, V.; Maiya, B. G. Orientation Dependence of Energy Transfer in an Anthracene-Porphyrin Donor-Acceptor System Angew. Chem. 2001, 113, 3733 3736 DOI: 10.1002/1521-3757(20011001)113:19<3733::AID-ANGE3733>3.0.CO;2-J
  30. 30
    Harriman, A.; Porter, G.; Richoux, M.-C. Photosensitised reduction of water to hydrogen using water-soluble zinc porphyrins J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2 1981, 77, 833 DOI: 10.1039/f29817700833
  31. 31
    Kubista, M.; Sjoback, R.; Albinsson, B. Determination of Equilibrium Constants by chemometric Analysis of Spectroscopic Data Anal. Chem. 1993, 65, 994 998 DOI: 10.1021/ac00056a008
  32. 32
    Crosby, G. A.; Demas, J. N. The Measurement of Photoluminescence Quantum Yields. A Review J. Phys. Chem. 1971, 75, 991 1024 DOI: 10.1021/j100678a001
  33. 33
    Heinrich, G.; Schoof, S.; Gusten, H. 9,10-diphenylanthracene as fluorescence quantum yield standard J. Photochem. 1974, 3, 315 320 DOI: 10.1016/0047-2670(74)80040-7
  34. 34
    Magde, D.; Brannon, J. H.; Cremers, T. L.; Olmsted, J. Absolute luminescence yield of cresyl violet. A standard for the red J. Phys. Chem. 1979, 83, 696 699 DOI: 10.1021/j100469a012
  35. 35
    Gray, V.; Dzebo, D.; Lundin, A.; Alborzpour, J.; Abrahamsson, M.; Albinsson, B.; Moth-Poulsen, K. Photophysical characterization of the 9,10-disubstituted anthracene chromophore and its applications in triplet triplet annihilation photon upconversion J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, 3, 11111 11121 DOI: 10.1039/C5TC02626A
  36. 36
    Haefele, A.; Blumhoff, J.; Khnayzer, R. S.; Castellano, F. N. Getting to the (Square) root of the problem: How to make noncoherent pumped upconversion linear J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 299 303 DOI: 10.1021/jz300012u
  37. 37
    Lakowicz, J. R. Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, 3rd ed.; Springer Science: New York, 2006.
  38. 38
    Mårtensson, J. Calculation of the Förster orientation factor for donor-acceptor systems with one chromophore of threefold or higher symmetry: zinc porphyrin Chem. Phys. Lett. 1994, 229, 449 456 DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(94)01065-X
  39. 39
    Wu, G.-Z.; Gan, W.-X.; Leung, H.-K. Photophysical properties of meso-substituted octaethylporphines and their zinc complexes J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1991, 87, 2933 DOI: 10.1039/ft9918702933
  40. 40
    Eaton, S. S.; Eaton, G. R.; Holm, R. H. Inter- and Intramolecular Ligand Exchange Reactions of Ruthenium(II) Carbonyl Porphine Complexes with Nitrogen Bases J. Organomet. Chem. 1972, 39, 179 195 DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(00)88918-4
  41. 41
    Da Ros, T.; Prato, M.; Guldi, D. M.; Ruzzi, M.; Pasimeni, L. Efficient charge separation in porphyrin-fullerene-ligand complexes Chem. - Eur. J. 2001, 7, 816 827 DOI: 10.1002/1521-3765(20010216)7:4<816::AID-CHEM816>3.0.CO;2-A
  42. 42
    Duan, P.; Yanai, N.; Kimizuka, N. Photon upconverting liquids: Matrix-free molecular upconversion systems functioning in air J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 19056 19059 DOI: 10.1021/ja411316s
  43. 43
    Tilley, A. J.; Robotham, B. E.; Steer, R. P.; Ghiggino, K. P. Sensitized non-coherent photon upconversion by intramolecular triplettriplet annihilation in a diphenylanthracene pendant polymer Chem. Phys. Lett. 2015, 618, 198 202 DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2014.11.016
  44. 44
    Hisamitsu, S.; Yanai, N.; Kimizuka, N. Photon-Upconverting Ionic Liquids: Effective Triplet Energy Migration in Contiguous Ionic Chromophore Arrays Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 11550 11554 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201505168
  45. 45
    Duan, P.; Yanai, N.; Nagatomi, H.; Kimizuka, N. Photon Upconversion in Supramolecular Gel Matrixes: Spontaneous Accumulation of Light-Harvesting DonorAcceptor Arrays in Nanofibers and Acquired Air Stability J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 1887 1894 DOI: 10.1021/ja511061h
  46. 46
    Ogawa, T.; Yanai, N.; Monguzzi, A.; Kimizuka, N. Highly Efficient Photon Upconversion in Self-Assembled Light-Harvesting Molecular Systems Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10882 DOI: 10.1038/srep10882

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 55 publications.

  1. Hui Fang, Michael J. Wilhelm, Danielle L. Kuhn, Zachary Zander, Hai-Lung Dai. Relaxation of Photoexcited Electrons through Transition Dipole Coupling in the Hybrid Nanocomposite Porphyrin/Ag/TiO2. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2024, 128 (42) , 17953-17960. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c03784
  2. Jishnudas Chakkamalayath, Prashant V. Kamat. Demystifying Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Mechanism in the CsPbI3–Rubrene–DBP Upconversion System. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2024, 146 (26) , 18095-18103. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c05178
  3. Naifang Liu, Hailong Chen, Jie Su, Yuxiang Weng, Jagadese J. Vittal, Sheng-Li Huang, Jianzhuang Jiang. Porphyrin–Sensitizers and Anthracene–Annihilators Built in Isostructural Frameworks for Investigating Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion. Inorganic Chemistry 2024, 63 (10) , 4691-4696. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.3c04313
  4. Henrik Gotfredsen, Dominik Thiel, Phillip M. Greißel, Lan Chen, Marcel Krug, Ilias Papadopoulos, Michael J. Ferguson, Mogens Brøndsted Nielsen, Tomás Torres, Timothy Clark, Dirk M. Guldi, Rik R. Tykwinski. Sensitized Singlet Fission in Rigidly Linked Axial and Peripheral Pentacene-Subphthalocyanine Conjugates. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2023, 145 (17) , 9548-9563. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c13353
  5. Keshav Kumar Jha, Amrutha Prabhakaran, Christopher S. Burke, Marcus Schulze, Ulrich S. Schubert, Tia E. Keyes, Michael Jäger, Benjamin Dietzek Ivanšić. Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion by Polymeric Sensitizers. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2022, 126 (8) , 4057-4066. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c09897
  6. Fredrik Edhborg, Hakan Bildirir, Pankaj Bharmoria, Kasper Moth-Poulsen, Bo Albinsson. Intramolecular Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Photon Upconversion in Diffusionally Restricted Anthracene Polymer. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2021, 125 (23) , 6255-6263. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c02856
  7. Axel Olesund, Victor Gray, Jerker Mårtensson, Bo Albinsson. Diphenylanthracene Dimers for Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Photon Upconversion: Mechanistic Insights for Intramolecular Pathways and the Importance of Molecular Geometry. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (15) , 5745-5754. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c00331
  8. Indranil Roy, Subhadip Goswami, Ryan M. Young, Itai Schlesinger, Mohammad Rasel Mian, Alan E. Enciso, Xuan Zhang, Jessica E. Hornick, Omar K. Farha, Michael R. Wasielewski, Joseph T. Hupp, J. Fraser Stoddart. Photon Upconversion in a Glowing Metal–Organic Framework. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (13) , 5053-5059. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.1c00298
  9. Xiu Wang, Wei Yuan, Ming Xu, Fuyou Li. Two-Photon Excitation-Based Imaging Postprocessing Algorithm Model for Background-Free Bioimaging. Analytical Chemistry 2021, 93 (4) , 2551-2559. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c04611
  10. Ashley Arcidiacono, Yan Zhou, Wendi Zhang, Jeffrey O. Ellison, Suliman Ayad, Erica S. Knorr, Autumn N. Peters, Lianqing Zheng, Wei Yang, S. Scott Saavedra, Kenneth Hanson. Examining the Influence of Bilayer Structure on Energy Transfer and Molecular Photon Upconversion in Metal Ion Linked Multilayers. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2020, 124 (43) , 23597-23610. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c08715
  11. Indranil Roy, Amine Garci, Yassine Beldjoudi, Ryan M. Young, David J. Pe, Minh T. Nguyen, Partha Jyoti Das, Michael R. Wasielewski, J. Fraser Stoddart. Host–Guest Complexation-Mediated Supramolecular Photon Upconversion. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2020, 142 (39) , 16600-16609. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c05445
  12. Fredrik Edhborg, Betül Küçüköz, Victor Gray, Bo Albinsson. Singlet Energy Transfer in Anthracene–Porphyrin Complexes: Mechanism, Geometry, and Implications for Intramolecular Photon Upconversion. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2019, 123 (46) , 9934-9943. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.9b07991
  13. Chen Ye, Victor Gray, Jerker Mårtensson, Karl Börjesson. Annihilation Versus Excimer Formation by the Triplet Pair in Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Photon Upconversion. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2019, 141 (24) , 9578-9584. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.9b02302
  14. Serhii I. Vasylevskyi, Dario M. Bassani, Katharina M. Fromm. Anion-Induced Structural Diversity of Zn and Cd Coordination Polymers Based on Bis-9,10-(pyridine-4-yl)-anthracene, Their Luminescent Properties, and Highly Efficient Sensing of Nitro Derivatives and Herbicides. Inorganic Chemistry 2019, 58 (9) , 5646-5653. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.8b03628
  15. Tristan Dilbeck, Kenneth Hanson. Molecular Photon Upconversion Solar Cells Using Multilayer Assemblies: Progress and Prospects. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2018, 9 (19) , 5810-5821. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b02635
  16. Qi Chen, Yiming Liu, Xinyan Guo, Jiang Peng, Sofia Garakyaraghi, Christopher M. Papa, Felix N. Castellano, Dahui Zhao, Yuguo Ma. Energy Transfer Dynamics in Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion Using a Bichromophoric Heavy-Atom-Free Sensitizer. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 2018, 122 (33) , 6673-6682. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpca.8b05901
  17. Syed S. Razi, Yun Hee Koo, Woojae Kim, Wenbo Yang, Zhijia Wang, Habtom Gobeze, Francis D’Souza, Jianzhang Zhao, Dongho Kim. Ping-Pong Energy Transfer in a Boron Dipyrromethane Containing Pt(II)–Schiff Base Complex: Synthesis, Photophysical Studies, and Anti-Stokes Shift Increase in Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion. Inorganic Chemistry 2018, 57 (9) , 4877-4890. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.7b02989
  18. Svante Hedström, Subhajyoti Chaudhuri, Nathan T. La Porte, Benjamin Rudshteyn, Jose F. Martinez, Michael R. Wasielewski, and Victor S. Batista . Thousandfold Enhancement of Photoreduction Lifetime in Re(bpy)(CO)3 via Spin-Dependent Electron Transfer from a Perylenediimide Radical Anion Donor. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2017, 139 (46) , 16466-16469. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b09438
  19. Kejing Xu, Jianzhang Zhao, and Evan G. Moore . Covalently Bonded Perylene–DiiodoBodipy Dyads for Thiol-Activatable Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2017, 121 (41) , 22665-22679. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b06922
  20. Tristan Dilbeck, Jamie C. Wang, Yan Zhou, Andrew Olsson, Milan Sykora, and Kenneth Hanson . Elucidating the Energy- and Electron-Transfer Dynamics of Photon Upconversion in Self-Assembled Bilayers. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2017, 121 (36) , 19690-19698. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b07003
  21. Carlito S. Ponseca, Jr., Pavel Chábera, Jens Uhlig, Petter Persson, and Villy Sundström . Ultrafast Electron Dynamics in Solar Energy Conversion. Chemical Reviews 2017, 117 (16) , 10940-11024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00807
  22. Zhijia Wang, Jianzhang Zhao, Antonio Barbon, Antonio Toffoletti, Yan Liu, Yonglin An, Liang Xu, Ahmet Karatay, Halime Gul Yaglioglu, Elif Akhüseyin Yildiz, and Mustafa Hayvali . Radical-Enhanced Intersystem Crossing in New Bodipy Derivatives and Application for Efficient Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2017, 139 (23) , 7831-7842. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.7b02063
  23. Prashanth Venkatesan, Preeti Pal, Siew Suan Ng, Jui-Yen Lin, Ruey-An Doong. Sensitized triplet-triplet annihilation-based photon upconversion: Assembly strategy and key consideration for sustainable energy and biomedical applications. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2025, 523 , 216266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2024.216266
  24. Jan Riebe, Benedikt Bädorf, Sarah Löffelsender, Matias E. Gutierrez Suburu, María Belén Rivas Aiello, Cristian A. Strassert, Stefan Grimme, Jochen Niemeyer. Molecular folding governs switchable singlet oxygen photoproduction in porphyrin-decorated bistable rotaxanes. Communications Chemistry 2024, 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-024-01247-7
  25. Ashley Arcidiacono, Cory Ruchlin, Grace M. McLeod, Dhruba Pattadar, Sarah Lindbom, Alex J. Robb, Suliman Ayad, Nikolas R. Dos Santos, Igor V. Alabugin, S. Scott Saavedra, Kenneth Hanson. Structural insights to metal ion linked multilayers on metal oxide surfaces via energy transfer and polarized ATR measurements. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2024, 12 (42) , 28882-28891. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4TA05156D
  26. Kai‐Hong Hsieh, Yuan‐Zhen Zhuang, Jing‐Xiang Huang, Zheng‐Yu Wei, Yong‐Yun Zhang, Jiun‐Haw Lee, Tien‐Lung Chiu, Man‐kit Leung. Enhancing Triplet–Triplet Annihilation Upconversion Performance Through Anthracene–Carbazole Interactions for Organic Optoelectronic Applications. Advanced Photonics Research 2024, 5 (10) https://doi.org/10.1002/adpr.202300344
  27. Ekaterina N. Ovchenkova, Nataliya G. Bichan, Arshak A. Tsaturyan, Tatyana N. Lomova. Non-covalent self-assembly of substituted phthalocyanine with C60, C70, and 9-phenylanthracene: spectroscopic insights and DFT calculations. Tetrahedron 2024, 3 , 134106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tet.2024.134106
  28. V. Vinoth Kumar, P. Gayathri, R. Sankar, C. Arunamaheswari, R. Prasath. Investigation on the Role of Molecular Planarity and Conjugation Effects on Physicochemical Properties of Anthracene and Pyrene Appended meso -5,15-Bis(Thien-2-yl)-10,20-Diphenylporphyrin Triads. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2023, 43 (9) , 8319-8332. https://doi.org/10.1080/10406638.2022.2149566
  29. Andrew J. Carrod, Victor Gray, Karl Börjesson. Recent advances in triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion and singlet fission, towards solar energy applications. Energy & Environmental Science 2022, 15 (12) , 4982-5016. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EE01600A
  30. Alessandra Ronchi, Angelo Monguzzi. Sensitized triplet–triplet annihilation based photon upconversion in full organic and hybrid multicomponent systems. Chemical Physics Reviews 2022, 3 (4) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0112032
  31. Ruomeng Wan, Dong-Gwang Ha, Jin-Hu Dou, Woo Seok Lee, Tianyang Chen, Julius J. Oppenheim, Jian Li, William A. Tisdale, Mircea Dincă. Dipole-mediated exciton management strategy enabled by reticular chemistry. Chemical Science 2022, 13 (36) , 10792-10797. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2SC01127A
  32. Yanpeng Liu, Tianjun Yu, Yi Zeng, Jinping Chen, Guoqiang Yang, Yi Li. Coupling Red‐to‐blue Upconversion Organic Microcrystals with Cd 0.5 Zn 0.5 S for Efficient and Durable Photocatalytic Hydrogen Production. Chemistry – An Asian Journal 2022, 17 (13) https://doi.org/10.1002/asia.202200343
  33. Lamia Saidi, Amira Samet, Thameur Dammak, Sebastien Pillet, Younes Abid. Down and up conversion luminescence of the lead-free organic metal halide material: (C 9 H 8 NO) 2 SnCl 6 ·2H 2 O. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2021, 23 (29) , 15574-15581. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1CP01702K
  34. Mo Yang, Sara Sheykhi, Yu Zhang, Carsten Milsmann, Felix N. Castellano. Low power threshold photochemical upconversion using a zirconium( iv ) LMCT photosensitizer. Chemical Science 2021, 12 (26) , 9069-9077. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC01662H
  35. Waqas Ahmad, Jingjing Wang, Huanhuan Li, Qin Ouyang, Wanhua Wu, Quansheng Chen. Strategies for combining triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion sensitizers and acceptors in a host matrix. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2021, 439 , 213944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2021.213944
  36. Helen Tunstall-Garcia, Bethan L. Charles, Rachel C. Evans. The Role of Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxanes in Optical Applications. Advanced Photonics Research 2021, 2 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/adpr.202000196
  37. Aurore Caron, Guillaume Noirbent, Didier Gigmes, Frédéric Dumur, Jacques Lalevée. Near‐Infrared PhotoInitiating Systems: Photothermal versus Triplet–Triplet Annihilation‐Based Upconversion Polymerization. Macromolecular Rapid Communications 2021, 42 (11) https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.202100047
  38. Biswajit Manna, Amitabha Nandi. The triplet exciton dynamics and diffusion properties of zinc and platinum-octaethylporphyrin nanoaggregates. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 2021, 408 , 113105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2020.113105
  39. Kirill P. Birin, Inna A. Abdulaeva, Daria A. Polivanovskaia, Alexander G. Martynov, Alexander V. Shokurov, Yulia G. Gorbunova, Aslan Yu Tsivadze. Imidazoporphyrins with appended polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: To conjugate or not to conjugate?. Dyes and Pigments 2021, 186 , 109042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2020.109042
  40. Chen Ye, Bo Albinsson, Karl Börjesson. Kinetics and Efficiency of Triplet‐Triplet Annihilation Photon Upconversion under Pulsed Excitation Conditions. Chemistry–Methods 2021, 1 (1) , 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/cmtd.202000046
  41. Seokwoo Kang, Jin-Suk Huh, Jang-Joo Kim, Jongwook Park. Highly efficient deep-blue fluorescence OLEDs with excellent charge balance based on phenanthro[9,10- d ]oxazole-anthracene derivatives. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2020, 8 (32) , 11168-11176. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0TC01811B
  42. Maria Sittig, Benny Schmidt, Helmar Görls, Thomas Bocklitz, Maria Wächtler, Stefan Zechel, Martin D. Hager, Benjamin Dietzek. Fluorescence upconversion by triplet–triplet annihilation in all-organic poly(methacrylate)-terpolymers. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2020, 22 (7) , 4072-4079. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP00232A
  43. Kazuo Tanaka, Wataru Ohashi, Kenichi Inafuku, Shohei Shiotsu, Yoshiki Chujo. Development of the sensitizer for generating higher-energy photons under diluted condition via the triplet-triplet annihilation-supported upconversion. Dyes and Pigments 2020, 172 , 107821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2019.107821
  44. David Jefferies, Timothy W. Schmidt, Laszlo Frazer. Photochemical Upconversion Theory: Importance of Triplet Energy Levels and Triplet Quenching. Physical Review Applied 2019, 12 (2) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.024023
  45. Hossein Goudarzi, Saurav Limbu, Juan Cabanillas-González, Vassiliki M. Zenonos, Ji-Seon Kim, Panagiotis E. Keivanidis. Impact of molecular conformation on triplet-fusion induced photon energy up-conversion in the absence of exothermic triplet energy transfer. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2019, 7 (12) , 3634-3643. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TC06283H
  46. Victor Gray, Kasper Moth-Poulsen, Bo Albinsson, Maria Abrahamsson. Towards efficient solid-state triplet–triplet annihilation based photon upconversion: Supramolecular, macromolecular and self-assembled systems. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 2018, 362 , 54-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2018.02.011
  47. Toshiko Mizokuro, Aizitiaili Abulikemu, Yusuke Sakagami, Tetsuro Jin, Kenji Kamada. Enhanced phosphorescence properties of a Pt-porphyrin derivative fixed on the surface of nano-porous glass. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences 2018, 17 (5) , 622-627. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7pp00449d
  48. Abagail K. Williams, Brad J. Davis, Erin R. Crater, Joseph R. Lott, Yoan C. Simon, Jason D. Azoulay. Thiol–ene click chemistry: a modular approach to solid-state triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2018, 6 (15) , 3876-3881. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7TC05729F
  49. Victor Gray, Betül Küçüköz, Fredrik Edhborg, Maria Abrahamsson, Kasper Moth-Poulsen, Bo Albinsson. Singlet and triplet energy transfer dynamics in self-assembled axial porphyrin–anthracene complexes: towards supra-molecular structures for photon upconversion. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2018, 20 (11) , 7549-7558. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CP00884A
  50. Yan Zhou, Suliman Ayad, Cory Ruchlin, Victoria Posey, Sean P. Hill, Qiang Wu, Kenneth Hanson. Examining the role of acceptor molecule structure in self-assembled bilayers: surface loading, stability, energy transfer, and upconverted emission. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2018, 20 (31) , 20513-20524. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CP03628D
  51. Steponas Raišys, Saulius Juršėnas, Yoan C. Simon, Christoph Weder, Karolis Kazlauskas. Enhancement of triplet-sensitized upconversion in rigid polymers via singlet exciton sink approach. Chemical Science 2018, 9 (33) , 6796-6802. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8SC02151A
  52. Qiaohui Zhou, Miaomiao Zhou, Yaxiong Wei, Xiaoguo Zhou, Shilin Liu, Song Zhang, Bing Zhang. Solvent effects on the triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion of diiodo-Bodipy and perylene. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2017, 19 (2) , 1516-1525. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CP06897A
  53. Victor Gray, Ambra Dreos, Paul Erhart, Bo Albinsson, Kasper Moth-Poulsen, Maria Abrahamsson. Loss channels in triplet–triplet annihilation photon upconversion: importance of annihilator singlet and triplet surface shapes. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2017, 19 (17) , 10931-10939. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7CP01368J
  54. Sundaram Chandrasekaran, Yen-Linh Thi Ngo, Lijun Sui, Eui Jung Kim, Dinh Khoi Dang, Jin Suk Chung, Seung Hyun Hur. Highly enhanced visible light water splitting of CdS by green to blue upconversion. Dalton Trans. 2017, 46 (40) , 13912-13919. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7DT02936E
  55. Laura A. Büldt, Oliver S. Wenger. Chromium complexes for luminescence, solar cells, photoredox catalysis, upconversion, and phototriggered NO release. Chem. Sci. 2017, 8 (11) , 7359-7367. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7SC03372A

The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

Cite this: J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 34, 19018–19026
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b06298
Published August 9, 2016

Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

5458

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Jablonski diagram explaining the triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion process. A sensitizer first absorbs a low energy photon and rapidly populates its first triplet excited state after ISC from the singlet state. The triplet energy is then transferred to an annihilator species through TET, generating one triplet excited annihilator molecule. When two triplet excited annihilator molecules come together they can undergo TTA to form a singlet excited annihilator which can deactivate to its ground state by emitting a photon. If the sensitizer and annihilator are in close proximity, e.g., when connected, a new deactivation pathway is possible, namely singlet energy transfer of the excited singlet annihilator, short-circuiting the system.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Molar absorptivity (solid) and normalized fluorescence (dashed) of the studied annihilators DPA (black), Ph1AnPyr (orange), Ph2AnPyr (blue), Ph3AnPyr (green), and Ph5AnPyr (red) and the sensitizer ZnOEP (gray).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. (Left) Upconverted emission plotted against excitation power (532 nm). (Right) Upconversion quantum yield. Samples of 1 μM ZnOEP sensitizer and 2.5 mM DPA (black squares), 2.5 mM Ph1AnPyr (orange diamonds), 2.5 mM Ph2AnPyr (blue circles), 0.23 mM Ph3AnPyr (green triangles), and 2.5 mM Ph5AnPyr (red open circles).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Upper: Fluorescence decay for Ph5AnPyr (14 μM), alone (black) corresponding fit (green), with ZnOEP (140 μM) (blue), corresponding fit (red) and instrument response function (yellow). The bump at 2 ns for Ph5AnPyr alone (black), is due to the instrument response. Lower: Residual to the fitted decays,Ph5AnPyr, alone (black) and with ZnOEP (blue).

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. (a) Angles between donor (blue) and acceptor (black) transition dipole moments used for calculating the orientation factor, κ2, for a donor–acceptor pair. (b) Transition dipole moment in anthracene derivatives (blue) and the degenerate transition dipole moments in ZnOEP are represented by two perpendicular transitions (green and black) spanning the porphyrin plane (orange). The y,z-plane is colored gray for clarity. Also illustrated are the angles relevant for the black transition dipole moment component in ZnOEP, β and γ. (c) As in b, now illustrating the angles relevant for the perpendicular dipole moment component (green arrow), β and γ.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Calculated triplet energy transfer efficiency for diffusion-controlled energy transfer with a sensitizer lifetime of 200 μs (blue dashed) and 2 μs (blue dotted). The fraction of bound sensitizer calculated for KB = 6000 M–1 and sensitizer concentrations between 1 μM and 1 mM (black) as well as the fraction of bound sensitizer calculated for KB = 60000 M–1 and a sensitizer concentration of 1 μM (red).

  • References


    This article references 46 other publications.

    1. 1
      Kurreck, H.; Huber, M. Model reactions for photosynthesis-photoinduced charge and energy transfer between covalently linked porphyrin and quinone units Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 849 866 DOI: 10.1002/anie.199508491
    2. 2
      Andréasson, J.; Zetterqvist, H.; Kajanus, J.; Mårtensson, J.; Albinsson, B. Efficient non-radiative deactivation and conformational flexibility of meso-diaryloctaalkylporphyrins in the excited triplet state J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104, 9307 9314 DOI: 10.1021/jp0015574
    3. 3
      Islangulov, R. R.; Kozlov, D. V.; Castellano, F. N. Low power upconversion using MLCT sensitizers Chem. Commun. 2005, 1, 3776 3778 DOI: 10.1039/b506575e
    4. 4
      Baluschev, S.; Miteva, T.; Yakutkin, V.; Nelles, G.; Yasuda, a.; Wegner, G. Up-conversion fluorescence: Noncoherent excitation by sunlight Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 97, 7 9 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.143903
    5. 5
      Baluschev, S.; Yakutkin, V.; Wegner, G.; Miteva, T.; Nelles, G.; Yasuda, A.; Chernov, S.; Aleshchenkov, S.; Cheprakov, A. Upconversion with ultrabroad excitation band: Simultaneous use of two sensitizers Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 181103 DOI: 10.1063/1.2734475
    6. 6
      Islangulov, R. R.; Lott, J.; Weder, C.; Castellano, F. N. Low-power upconversion in solid polymer films J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 12652 12653 DOI: 10.1021/ja075014k
    7. 7
      Baluschev, S.; Yakutkin, V.; Miteva, T.; Wegner, G.; Roberts, T.; Nelles, G.; Yasuda, A.; Chernov, S.; Aleshchenkov, S.; Cheprakov, A. A general approach for non-coherently excited annihilation up-conversion: Transforming the solar-spectrum New J. Phys. 2008, 10, 013007 DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/10/1/013007
    8. 8
      Singh-Rachford, T. N.; Castellano, F. N. Low Power Visible-to-UV Upconversion J. Phys. Chem. A 2009, 113, 5912 5917 DOI: 10.1021/jp9021163
    9. 9
      Ji, S.; Wu, W.; Wu, W.; Guo, H.; Zhao, J. Ruthenium(II) polyimine complexes with a long-lived 3IL excited state or a 3MLCT/3IL equilibrium: Efficient triplet sensitizers for low-power upconversion Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50, 1626 1629 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201006192
    10. 10
      Trupke, T.; Green, M. A.; Würfel, P. Improving solar cell efficiencies by up-conversion of sub-band-gap light J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 92, 4117 4122 DOI: 10.1063/1.1505677
    11. 11
      Ekins-Daukes, N. J.; Schmidt, T. W. A molecular approach to the intermediate band solar cell: The symmetric case Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 93, 063507 DOI: 10.1063/1.2970157
    12. 12
      de Wild, J.; Meijerink, A.; Rath, J. K.; van Sark, W. G. J. H. M.; Schropp, R. E. I. Upconverter solar cells: materials and applications Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 4835 DOI: 10.1039/c1ee01659h
    13. 13
      Briggs, J. a.; Atre, A. C.; Dionne, J. a. Narrow-bandwidth solar upconversion: Case studies of existing systems and generalized fundamental limits J. Appl. Phys. 2013, 113, 124509 DOI: 10.1063/1.4796092
    14. 14
      Cheng, Y. Y.; Fückel, B.; MacQueen, R. W.; Khoury, T.; Clady, R. G. C. R.; Schulze, T. F.; Ekins-Daukes, N. J.; Crossley, M. J.; Stannowski, B.; Lips, K. Improving the light-harvesting of amorphous silicon solar cells with photochemical upconversion Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 6953 DOI: 10.1039/c2ee21136j
    15. 15
      Schulze, T. F.; Cheng, Y. Y.; Fuckel, B.; MacQueen, R. W.; Danos, A.; Davis, N. J. L. K.; Tayebjee, M. J. Y.; Khoury, T.; Clady, R. G. C. R.; Ekins-Daukes, N. J. Photochemical upconversion enhanced solar cells: Effect of a back reflector Aust. J. Chem. 2012, 65, 480 485 DOI: 10.1071/CH12117
    16. 16
      Schulze, T. F.; Czolk, J.; Cheng, Y.-Y.; Fückel, B.; MacQueen, R. W.; Khoury, T.; Crossley, M. J.; Stannowski, B.; Lips, K.; Lemmer, U. Efficiency Enhancement of Organic and Thin-Film Silicon Solar Cells with Photochemical Upconversion J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 22794 22801 DOI: 10.1021/jp309636m
    17. 17
      Kim, J.-h.; Kim, J.-h. Encapsulated TTA-Based Upconversion in the Aqueous Phase for Sub-bandgap Semiconductor Photocatalysis Encapsulated TTA-Based Upconversion in the Aqueous Phase for Sub-bandgap Semiconductor Photocatalysis J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 17478 17481 DOI: 10.1021/ja308789u
    18. 18
      Khnayzer, R. S.; Blumhoff, J.; Harrington, J. a.; Haefele, A.; Deng, F.; Castellano, F. N. Upconversion-powered photoelectrochemistry Chem. Commun. 2012, 48, 209 DOI: 10.1039/C1CC16015J
    19. 19
      Nattestad, A.; Cheng, Y.; Macqueen, R.; Schulze, T.; Thompson, F.; Mozer, A.; Fuckel, B.; Khoury, T.; Crossley, M.; Lips, K. Dye-Sensitized Solar Cell with Integrated Triplet Triplet Annihilation Upconversion System J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 2073 2078 DOI: 10.1021/jz401050u
    20. 20
      Börjesson, K.; Dzebo, D.; Albinsson, B.; Moth-Poulsen, K. Photon upconversion facilitated molecular solar energy storage J. Mater. Chem. A 2013, 1, 8521 8524 DOI: 10.1039/c3ta12002c
    21. 21
      Gray, V.; Dzebo, D.; Abrahamsson, M.; Albinsson, B.; Moth-Poulsen, K. Triplet-triplet annihilation photon-upconversion: towards solar energy applications Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 10345 52 DOI: 10.1039/c4cp00744a
    22. 22
      Yanai, N.; Kimizuka, N. Recent emergence of photon upconversion based on triplet energy migration in molecular assemblies Chem. Commun. 2016, 52, 5354 5370 DOI: 10.1039/C6CC00089D
    23. 23
      Mahato, P.; Monguzzi, A.; Yanai, N.; Yamada, T.; Kimizuka, N. Fast and long-range triplet exciton diffusion in metalorganic frameworks for photon upconversion at ultralow excitation power Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 924 930 DOI: 10.1038/nmat4366
    24. 24
      Mahato, P.; Yanai, N.; Sindoro, M.; Granick, S.; Kimizuka, N. Preorganized Chromophores Facilitate Triplet Energy Migration, Annihilation and Upconverted Singlet Energy Collection J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 6541 6549 DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b01652
    25. 25
      Kozlov, D. V.; Castellano, F. N. Anti-Stokes delayed fluorescence from metal organic bichromophores Chem. Commun. 2004, 1, 2860 2861 DOI: 10.1039/B412681E
    26. 26
      Bergamini, G.; Ceroni, P.; Fabbrizi, P.; Cicchi, S. A multichromophoric dendrimer: from synthesis to energy up-conversion in a rigid matrix Chem. Commun. 2011, 47, 12780 DOI: 10.1039/c1cc16000a
    27. 27
      Tilley, A. J.; Kim, M. J.; Chen, M.; Ghiggino, K. P. Photo-induced energy transfer in ruthenium-centred polymers prepared by a RAFT approach Polymer 2013, 54, 2865 2872 DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2013.03.064
    28. 28
      Yu, S.; Zeng, Y.; Chen, J.; Yu, T.; Zhang, X.; Yang, G.; Li, Y. Intramolecular triplet-triplet energy transfer enhanced triplet-triplet annihilation upconversion with a short-lived triplet state platinum(II) terpyridyl acetylide photosensitizer RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 70640 70648 DOI: 10.1039/C5RA12579K
    29. 29
      Giribabu, L.; Ashok Kumar, A.; Neeraja, V.; Maiya, B. G. Orientation Dependence of Energy Transfer in an Anthracene-Porphyrin Donor-Acceptor System Angew. Chem. 2001, 113, 3733 3736 DOI: 10.1002/1521-3757(20011001)113:19<3733::AID-ANGE3733>3.0.CO;2-J
    30. 30
      Harriman, A.; Porter, G.; Richoux, M.-C. Photosensitised reduction of water to hydrogen using water-soluble zinc porphyrins J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2 1981, 77, 833 DOI: 10.1039/f29817700833
    31. 31
      Kubista, M.; Sjoback, R.; Albinsson, B. Determination of Equilibrium Constants by chemometric Analysis of Spectroscopic Data Anal. Chem. 1993, 65, 994 998 DOI: 10.1021/ac00056a008
    32. 32
      Crosby, G. A.; Demas, J. N. The Measurement of Photoluminescence Quantum Yields. A Review J. Phys. Chem. 1971, 75, 991 1024 DOI: 10.1021/j100678a001
    33. 33
      Heinrich, G.; Schoof, S.; Gusten, H. 9,10-diphenylanthracene as fluorescence quantum yield standard J. Photochem. 1974, 3, 315 320 DOI: 10.1016/0047-2670(74)80040-7
    34. 34
      Magde, D.; Brannon, J. H.; Cremers, T. L.; Olmsted, J. Absolute luminescence yield of cresyl violet. A standard for the red J. Phys. Chem. 1979, 83, 696 699 DOI: 10.1021/j100469a012
    35. 35
      Gray, V.; Dzebo, D.; Lundin, A.; Alborzpour, J.; Abrahamsson, M.; Albinsson, B.; Moth-Poulsen, K. Photophysical characterization of the 9,10-disubstituted anthracene chromophore and its applications in triplet triplet annihilation photon upconversion J. Mater. Chem. C 2015, 3, 11111 11121 DOI: 10.1039/C5TC02626A
    36. 36
      Haefele, A.; Blumhoff, J.; Khnayzer, R. S.; Castellano, F. N. Getting to the (Square) root of the problem: How to make noncoherent pumped upconversion linear J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 299 303 DOI: 10.1021/jz300012u
    37. 37
      Lakowicz, J. R. Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, 3rd ed.; Springer Science: New York, 2006.
    38. 38
      Mårtensson, J. Calculation of the Förster orientation factor for donor-acceptor systems with one chromophore of threefold or higher symmetry: zinc porphyrin Chem. Phys. Lett. 1994, 229, 449 456 DOI: 10.1016/0009-2614(94)01065-X
    39. 39
      Wu, G.-Z.; Gan, W.-X.; Leung, H.-K. Photophysical properties of meso-substituted octaethylporphines and their zinc complexes J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1991, 87, 2933 DOI: 10.1039/ft9918702933
    40. 40
      Eaton, S. S.; Eaton, G. R.; Holm, R. H. Inter- and Intramolecular Ligand Exchange Reactions of Ruthenium(II) Carbonyl Porphine Complexes with Nitrogen Bases J. Organomet. Chem. 1972, 39, 179 195 DOI: 10.1016/S0022-328X(00)88918-4
    41. 41
      Da Ros, T.; Prato, M.; Guldi, D. M.; Ruzzi, M.; Pasimeni, L. Efficient charge separation in porphyrin-fullerene-ligand complexes Chem. - Eur. J. 2001, 7, 816 827 DOI: 10.1002/1521-3765(20010216)7:4<816::AID-CHEM816>3.0.CO;2-A
    42. 42
      Duan, P.; Yanai, N.; Kimizuka, N. Photon upconverting liquids: Matrix-free molecular upconversion systems functioning in air J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 19056 19059 DOI: 10.1021/ja411316s
    43. 43
      Tilley, A. J.; Robotham, B. E.; Steer, R. P.; Ghiggino, K. P. Sensitized non-coherent photon upconversion by intramolecular triplettriplet annihilation in a diphenylanthracene pendant polymer Chem. Phys. Lett. 2015, 618, 198 202 DOI: 10.1016/j.cplett.2014.11.016
    44. 44
      Hisamitsu, S.; Yanai, N.; Kimizuka, N. Photon-Upconverting Ionic Liquids: Effective Triplet Energy Migration in Contiguous Ionic Chromophore Arrays Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 11550 11554 DOI: 10.1002/anie.201505168
    45. 45
      Duan, P.; Yanai, N.; Nagatomi, H.; Kimizuka, N. Photon Upconversion in Supramolecular Gel Matrixes: Spontaneous Accumulation of Light-Harvesting DonorAcceptor Arrays in Nanofibers and Acquired Air Stability J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 1887 1894 DOI: 10.1021/ja511061h
    46. 46
      Ogawa, T.; Yanai, N.; Monguzzi, A.; Kimizuka, N. Highly Efficient Photon Upconversion in Self-Assembled Light-Harvesting Molecular Systems Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10882 DOI: 10.1038/srep10882
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b06298.

    • Experimental procedures and characterization of new compounds as well as description of SVD analysis, corresponding spectroscopic data, time-resolved fluorescence, and transient absorption measurements (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.