4.7 Article

Conquering the morphology barrier of ternary all-polymer solar cells by designing random terpolymer for constructing efficient binary all-polymer solar cells

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 439, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.135491

关键词

All-polymer solar cells; Ternary blend; Binary blend; Random ternary copolymerization; Optimizing miscibility

资金

  1. Fund of University of South China [210XQD018, 201RGC019]
  2. Guangdong Natural Sci-ence Foundation [2017A030306011]
  3. Dongguan Innovative Research Team Program [2018607201002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By using the random ternary copolymerization strategy, the morphology barrier of ternary all-polymer solar cells can be overcome, leading to the achievement of a more ideal film morphology and higher photovoltaic conversion efficiency.
The ternary strategy based on two electron donors and one electron acceptor can effectively expand the absorption and photovoltaic performance of all-polymer solar cells (all-PSC). However, it is still challenging to realize the ideal morphology of the ternary blend film through reasonable molecular design. To overcome the morphology barrier of ternary all-PSC, here we replaced physical blending of two donors (P1 and P2) by chemical random ternary copolymerization obtaining a terpolymer namely P1-co-25%P2. The binary all-PSCs constructed by integrating P1-co-25%P2 with a polymerized non-fullerene acceptor PYFT exhibited an impressively high power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 14.67%, which obviously outperformed those of obtained from ternary all-PSCs based on P1:P2:PYFT. Further morphology characterization of these blend films revealed that the incorporation of the P2 unit in the P1 backbone can optimize the 7C-7C stacking, miscibility and phase separation that beneficial to exciton diffusion and charge transport, illustrating the unparalleled superiority of the random ternary copolymerization strategy compared to the ternary blending strategy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据