4.8 Article

Long-Lived Correlated Triplet Pairs in a π-Stacked Crystalline Pentacene Derivative

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 140, 期 6, 页码 2326-2335

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.7b12662

关键词

-

资金

  1. David and Lucile Packard Fellowship for Science and Engineering
  2. STROBE, A National Science Foundation Science & Technology Center [DMR 1548924]
  3. Center for Computational Study of Excited-State Phenomena in Energy Materials (C2SEPEM) at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  4. National Science Foundation [DGE 1106400]
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship
  6. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  7. Camille and Henry Dreyfus Teacher Scholar Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Singlet fission is the spin-conserving process by which a singlet exciton splits into two triplet excitons. Singlet fission occurs via a correlated triplet pair intermediate, but direct evidence of this state has been scant, and in films of TIPS-pentacene, a small molecule organic semiconductor, even the rate of fission has been unclear. We use polarization-resolved transient absorption microscopy on individual crystalline domains of TIPS-pentacene to establish the fission rate and demonstrate that the initially created triplets remain bound for a surprisingly long time, hundreds of picoseconds, before separating. Furthermore, using a broadband probe, we show that it is possible to determine absorbance spectra of individual excited species in a crystalline solid. We find that triplet interactions perturb the absorbance, and provide evidence that triplet interaction and binding could be caused by the p-stacked geometry. Elucidating the relationship between the lattice structure and the electronic structure and dynamics has important implications for the creation of photovoltaic devices that aim to boost efficiency via singlet fission.

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

4.8
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