4.6 Article

Influence of orientation mismatch on charge transport across grain boundaries in tri-isopropylsilylethynyl (TIPS) pentacene thin films

期刊

PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 19, 期 17, 页码 10854-10862

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6cp06436a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Xerox Foundation/Xerox Research Centre of Canada (XRCC)
  2. DAAD
  3. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K029843/1, EP/K030671/1, EP/M025020/1]
  4. Royal Society
  5. BMBF grant MEDOS [FKZ 03EK3503B]
  6. BMBF grant MESOMERIE [FKZ 13N10723]
  7. BMBF grant InterPhase [FKZ 13N13661]
  8. [646259]
  9. [NMP-20-2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a multi-scale model for charge transport across grain boundaries in molecular electronic materials that incorporates packing disorder, electrostatic and polarisation effects. We choose quasi two-dimensional films of tri-isopropylsilylethynyl pentacene (TIPS-P) as a model system representative of technologically relevant crystalline organic semiconductors. We use atomistic molecular dynamics, with a force-field specific for TIPS-P, to generate and equilibrate polycrystalline two-dimensional thin films. The energy landscape is obtained by calculating contributions from electrostatic interactions and polarization. The variation in these contributions leads to energetic barriers between grains. Subsequently, charge transport is simulated using a kinetic Monte-Carlo algorithm. Two-grain systems with varied mutual orientation are studied. We find relatively little effect of long grain boundaries due to the presence of low impedance pathways. However, effects could be more pronounced for systems with limited inter-grain contact areas. Furthermore, we present a lattice model to generalize the model for small molecular systems. In the general case, depending on molecular architecture and packing, grain boundaries can result in interfacial energy barriers, traps or a combination of both with qualitatively different effects on charge transport.

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

4.6
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