Evaluating Thiophene Electron-Donor Layers for the Rapid Assessment of Boron Subphthalocyanines as Electron Acceptors in Organic Photovoltaics: Solution or Vacuum Deposition?

• Published in: Chemphyschem Vol. 16; no. 6; pp. 1245 - 1250
• Main Authors: Josey, David S., Castrucci, Jeffrey S., Dang, Jeremy D., Lessard, Benoît H., Bender, Timothy P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Weinheim WILEY-VCH Verlag 27.04.2015; WILEY‐VCH Verlag; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Boron; deposition techniques; Derivatives; electron transfer; thiophenes; vacuum; thiophenes; electron transfer; vacuum; deposition techniques; boron
• ISSN: 1439-4235; 1439-7641
• DOI: 10.1002/cphc.201402751

In this study, we consider the choice of a standard electron‐donating material to be paired with boron subphthalocyanines (BsubPcs) to rapidly assess the viability of new BsubPc derivatives as electron‐accepting materials within organic photovoltaic devices (OPVs). Specifically, we evaluate the effectiveness of solution‐cast poly(3‐hexylthiophene‐2,5‐diyl) (P3HT) as an electron donor paired with BsubPc derivatives relative to vacuum‐deposited sexithiophene (α‐6T). By using fullerene (C60), boron subphthalocyanine chloride (Cl‐BsubPc), and hexachloro boron subphthalocyanine chloride (Cl‐Cl6BsubPc) as electron acceptors, we find that devices made with α‐6T outperform those with P3HT. However, the two thiophene‐based materials show the same performance trends. Given the preservation of these trends, we can recommend either option for assessing the potential of new BsubPc derivatives; P3HT as a solution‐cast electron‐donor layer or α‐6T as a vacuum‐deposited alternative. Basis for comparison: Sexithiophene and poly(3‐hexylthiophene‐2,5‐diyl) have been investigated for their potential use as electron‐donor layers for rapidly assessing boron subphthalocyanines (BsubPc; see figure) as electron acceptors. The advantages of solution‐cast alternatives to vacuum‐deposited electron‐donor layers are discussed.