Charge-Transfer States in Organic Solar Cells: Understanding the

Research Article www.acsami.org

Charge-Transfer States in Organic Solar Cells: Understanding the Impact of Polarization, Delocalization, and Disorder Zilong Zheng,† Naga Rajesh Tummala,† Yao-Tsung Fu,† Veaceslav Coropceanu,*,† and Jean-Luc Brédas*,†,‡ †

School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0400, United States ‡ KAUST Solar Center, Division of Physical Science and Engineering, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: We investigate the impact of electronic polarization, charge delocalization, and energetic disorder on the charge-transfer (CT) states formed at a planar C60/pentacene interface. The ability to examine large complexes containing up to seven pentacene molecules and three C60 molecules allows us to take explicitly into account the electronic polarization effects. These complexes are extracted from a bilayer architecture modeled by molecular dynamics simulations and evaluated by means of electronic-structure calculations based on long-rangeseparated functionals (ωB97XD and BNL) with optimized rangeseparation parameters. The energies of the lowest charge-transfer states derived for the large complexes are in very good agreement with the experimentally reported values. The average singlet−triplet energy splittings of the lowest CT states are calculated not to exceed 10 meV. The rates of geminate recombination as well as of dissociation of the triplet excitons are also evaluated. In line with experiment, our results indicate that the pentacene triplet excitons generated through singlet fission can dissociate into separated charges on a picosecond time scale, despite the fact that their energy in C60/pentacene heterojunctions is slightly lower than the energies of the lowest CT triplet states. KEYWORDS: charge-transfer states, singlet−triplet energy splitting, electronic couplings, organic photovoltaics, range-separated hybrid functionals, pentacene-fullerene blends

■

INTRODUCTION The charge-transfer (CT) states appearing at the interface between the donor and acceptor components play a fundamental role in the operation of organic solar cells.1−4 It has been shown that the energies of the CT states correlate with the open-circuit voltage of organic photovoltaic (OPV) devices.5−7 As a result, the CT states are at the center of experimental2,4,6,8−13 and theoretical3,14−32 studies in the OPV field. In particular, great attention is currently given to the understanding of how the extent of delocalization of the CT states affects the charge-separation and charge-recombination processes.2,10,16,17,25,31,33,34 Thus, a better grasp of how to control the CT states can aid in the optimization of OPV materials and enhance device performance. Although the electronic excitations on individual molecular moieties are well characterized, a comprehensive description of the CT states is still lacking. This difficulty in analyzing CT states arises from the dependence of these states on multiple factors such as the donor−acceptor interface geometry, the nature of pure and mixed donor/acceptor domains, and the crystallinity within these domains. At the electronic-structure © 2017 American Chemical Society

level, all these factors can influence the electronic polarization and extent of electron delocalization and consequently have a strong influence on the energy and nature of the CT states. Using effective dielectric models can help account for the polarization energy, especially in the case of nonpolar systems;24 however, studying the combined effects of electronic polarization and delocalization requires systems with large sizes to be investigated. Time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) calculations based on extended donor−acceptor systems (beyond model systems containing just one donor site and one acceptor site) have been recently performed14,16,18,25,34 to investigate the effect of system size on the CT states. However, the interplay between electron delocalization and polarization effects on the nature of CT states remains to be addressed in detail. This issue is the focus of the present work, where we investigate the CT states in large C60/pentacene complexes Received: February 14, 2017 Accepted: May 8, 2017 Published: May 8, 2017 18095

DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b02193 ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 18095−18102

Research Article

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces

energy difference between the initial and final states; λ, the reorganization energy; T, the temperature; and kb, the Boltzmann constant. The radiative decay rates from the lowest CT state were obtained from the Einstein coefficient:

containing up to seven pentacene molecules and three C60 molecules. In contrast to our previous work25 where calculations were performed on model systems, here, in order to account for realistic packing motifs, we use donor−acceptor complexes extracted from C60/pentacene bilayer heterojunctions whose structures have been generated by means of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. We study both the singlet and triplet lowest CT states and estimate the rates of their decay to the ground state. We also evaluate the dissociation rates of the triplet molecular excitons.

A=

METHODOLOGY The atomic coordinates of the various complexes investigated in this study are obtained from the MD simulations of the C60/ pentacene interface described in our earlier work.35 The “edgeon” morphology of the C60/pentacene bilayer was generated via deposition of the C60 molecules on top of the crystalline pentacene (001) surface. For the electronic-structure calculations, we extracted 63 clusters consisting of one C60 and one pentacene molecule (these clusters are hereafter denoted as C60/P), 21 clusters consisting of one C60 and three pentacene molecules (C60/3P), 10 clusters of 2C60/6P molecules, and 6 clusters of 3C60/7P molecules (see the structures of these clusters in Figures S1−S3 in the Supporting Information (SI)). The largest systems, 3C60/7P, contain more than 400 atoms, which means that investigations of larger clusters at the level of theory described below becomes computationally prohibitive. As in our earlier work,24−26 the excited states were investigated by means of time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) based on range-separated (RS) functionals with optimally tuned RS parameters.36−38 In a recent study,24 we indicated that the estimated CT energies of small donor− acceptor complexes compare better with experiment when the RS parameter (ω) is optimized in the presence of a dielectric medium, in order to mimic the impact of the solid-state environment. However, this approach in the case of large systems where delocalization effects are present needs additional validation. In fact, our results point out that in these instances such calculations can yield unphysically small CT energies. Therefore, here, the RS parameters were optimized by minimizing J(ω), based on calculations on isolated clusters:37

2π |Vel|2 ℏ

⎛ (λ + ΔG)2 ⎞ 1 exp⎜ − ⎟ 4πλk bT ⎠ ⎝ 4πλk bT

3ϵ0π ℏ c

|μCT → S0 |2

(3)

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Frontier Molecular Orbitals. The computed HOMO and LUMO energies of all clusters considered in this study are given in Tables S2−S6, while the average HOMO and LUMO energies in the clusters along with the respective values for the isolated C60 and pentacene molecules, obtained at the tunedBNL/6-31G(d) level, are shown in Figure 1 (the calculations using the ωB97XD functional yield very similar results, see SI). The figure illustrates that the increase in the size of the donor−

(1)

where HOMO and LUMO denote the energies of the highest occupied and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals of the system and IP and EA, the ionization potential and electron affinity. The tuned values of ω are collected in Table S1 of the SI. The energies of the lowest excited states were obtained at the full TDDFT level with the ωB97XD39 functional as well as by means of TDDFT calculations based on the Tamm-Dancoff approximation (TDA-TDDFT) with the Baer−Neuhauser− Livshits (BNL) functional.36 All TDDFT calculations were performed with the 6-31G(d) basis set. The rates of nonradiative charge recombination were derived using Marcus semiclassical electron-transfer theory:40,41 k=

4 3

where μCT→S0 is the transition dipole moment between the 1 CT1 and S0 states; ϵ0, the vacuum permittivity; and c, the speed of light. In order to elucidate the relative impacts of charge delocalization, electronic polarization, and energetic disorder on the frontier orbitals and CT states, we followed a tightbinding approach. The tight-binding Hamiltonian is based on the site energies of the individual pentacene and C60 molecules and on transfer integrals (tij) corresponding to hole transfer among the pentacenes and electron transfer among the C60 molecules in selected C60/pentacene clusters. The electronic couplings (Vel) related to charge recombination were computed by means of the fragment charge difference method,42 which is based on the generalized Mulliken-Hush approach.43 The transfer integrals (tij) related to hole or electron transfer were obtained using the fragment orbital approach.44 The site energies of individual pentacenes and fullerenes (HOMO and LUMO energies) in a given cluster were computed by means of a combined quantum mechanical (QM)/electrostatic model, following which the molecular orbital energies of each molecule in the cluster are computed at the QM level while the other molecules are represented by point charges (here, we take the CM545 charges obtained from single-point gas-phase calculations). The ωB97XD calculations were carried out with the Gaussian 09 package,46 while the calculations with the BNL functional were performed with the Q-Chem program.47

■

J(ω) = |HOMO + IP|2 + |LUMO + EA|2

(ECT − ES0)3

(2) Figure 1. Average energies (standard deviations are in the range of ∼0.03−0.12 eV) of the frontier molecular orbitals of isolated pentacene and C60 molecules and pentacene/C60 clusters obtained at the tuned-BNL/6-31G(d) level.

Here, Vel denotes the electronic coupling between the initial and final diabatic states; ℏ, the Planck constant; ΔG, the Gibbs free energy (driving force) and is approximated here as the 18096


Research Article


charge densities, which show that the HOMO, HOMO−1, and HOMO−2 are predominantly localized on just one but different pentacenes in the C60/3P and 3P clusters. The difference in site energies is related first to the fact that the pentacene molecules in the MD simulations are somewhat geometrically different. Indeed, as seen from Figure 2a, the site energy difference due to the variations in geometry is about 70 meV, which is still not sufficient to reproduce the ΔEspt value. Importantly, another source of site energy disorder comes from electronic polarization.44,49 Indeed, calculations based on the mixed QM/electrostatic model yield −5.34, −5.29, and −5.62 eV for the HOMOs of the P1, P2, and P3 monomers, respectively. Thus, the polarization-driven site-energy disorder is about 0.3 eV. Tight-binding calculations using these site energies yield −5.24, −5.34, and −5.67 eV, for the HOMO, HOMO−1, and HOMO−2 energies of the complex; these orbital energies and their 430 meV splitting compare well with the DFT result for the entire system. We now consider the factors contributing to the modification of the HOMO energy in the C60/3P system with respect to the HOMO of the isolated pentacene molecules. Taking the P2 molecule as a reference (as it has the highest HOMO level in the system), we find that the overall increase in energy is about 270 meV, see Figure 2. Since ca. 20 meV result from the interaction between C60 and the 3P cluster, 250 meV are due to the combined effect of electronic polarization (within the pentacene cluster) and electron delocalization. Our results show that, if all three pentacene molecules were identical, the maximum increase (destabilization) in energy could reach 380 meV. That the actual energy of 250 meV is smaller than this maximum value is due to the dual role played by electronic polarization. On the one hand, it contributes to the increase of the site energies while, on the other hand, it also contributes to the site energy disorder. As a result, the effect of delocalization is diminished and the HOMO, HOMO−1, and HOMO−2 in the C60/3P and 3P complexes show a tendency to localize on a single pentacene molecule. Turning to the LUMO energies in the selected 3C60/7P systems, the calculations indicate that the decrease in energy is mostly due to electronic polarization, while the contribution from electron delocalization is very small. This is in the line with the results for the transfer integrals, which show that the electronic couplings are smaller for electrons than for holes. We note that, here, we only considered charge delocalization parallel to the donor−acceptor interface. Due to a more isotropic nature of the C60 domains (and resulting electronic couplings), delocalization perpendicular to the C60/P interface can be expected to be larger for electrons than for holes, as was suggested for other fullerene containing systems.50,51 Charge Transfer Singlet States. We now turn to the discussion of the CT states. The energies of the lowest singlet CT states averaged over each set of clusters of the same size are given in Figure 3 and Table 1. The calculations using the BNL and ωB97XD functionals again yield very similar results, therefore only the BNL results are discussed hereafter (the results derived with the ωB97XD functional can be found in the SI). In a way similar to the trends for the frontier orbitals and the HOMO−LUMO gap, an increase in cluster size from C60/P to 3C60/7P leads to a decrease in the average energy of the lowest CT state, from ca. 2.2 eV to about 1.3 eV. We note that, as in the case of previous calculations,25,26 the lowest CT state in C60/P is located above the lowest pentacene-based “local” state; depending on the system geometry, CT1 in C60/P

acceptor clusters leads to a significant destabilization [stabilization] of the HOMO [LUMO] level by about 0.7 [0.3 eV], and thus a decrease in the LUMO−HOMO gap by about 1.0 eV (see Table S6). We note that the energies of the frontier orbitals are the main ingredient defining the energy of the lowest CT state. In extended systems, both electronic polarization and electron delocalization affect the frontier orbital energies. In order to shed light on this matter, we show in Figure 2, as an example,

Figure 2. Electronic structure of a representative C60/3P complex #14 and the corresponding 3P complex (see Figure S1): (a) HOMO energies of the individual pentacene (P1, P2 and P3) molecules; (b) transfer integrals; illustration of the HOMO, HOMO−1, and HOMO−2 for the (c) C60/3P and (d) 3P complexes. All calculations are performed at the ωB97XD/6-31G(d) level with ω = 0.147 bohr−1.52

the results obtained for the C60/3P #14 complex (which has the highest HOMO energy among all C60/3P complexes, see SI). The calculations indicate that the HOMO, HOMO−1, and HOMO−2 of the C 60 /3P complexes result from the interactions among the HOMOs of the individual pentacene molecules in the complex. When the site energies of all three pentacene molecules are identical, the total orbital energy splitting, ΔEspt = EHOMO − EHOMO−2, can be taken as a measure of the delocalization effect. A comparison of the results obtained for the C60/3P cluster and the corresponding 3P cluster shows that the interaction between the C60 and pentacene molecules results in an increase in energy by about 20 meV for all three pentacene HOMOs. This interaction, however, has no effect on the orbital energy splitting, which is about 520 meV in both C60/3P and 3P clusters. The electronic couplings (transfer integrals) related to hole delocalization are shown in Figure 2b. The values are in the range of 50−100 meV and compare very well with the electronic couplings calculated previously for the pentacene single crystal.48 Calculations performed within the tight-binding model, based on the derived transfer integrals and assuming that all pentacene molecules have the same site energy, yield an energy splitting of 260 meV. This value is half the DFT ΔEspt estimate of 520 meV. This underlines that the hole delocalization effect alone cannot explain the characteristics of the cluster HOMOs and that the difference in site energies (due to site energy disorder) also contributes to the apparent splitting energy. This conclusion is also supported by the MO 18097


Research Article


we show in Figure 4 the natural transition orbitals (NTOs) describing the lowest three CT states of the 2C60/6P complex

Figure 3. Average energies and standard deviations of the lowest vertical CT state as a function of the P/C60 complex size, as obtained at the tuned-BNL/6-31G(d) level.

Table 1. Average Charges (QCT/e) and Energy (ECT/eV) of the Two Lowest Singlet CT States and Their Energy Difference, Calculated at the Tuned-BNL/6-31G(d) Levela C60/P C60/3P 2C60/6P 3C60/7P

QCT1

ECT1

QCT2

ECT2

ECT2 − ECT1

0.89 0.94 0.92 0.88

2.18 1.54 1.45 1.25

0.85 0.93 0.90 0.89

2.30 1.65 1.53 1.34

0.12 0.11 0.08 0.09

a

See Tables S7−S14 for the individual CT state energies of all the configurations.

is found to correspond to an excited state located between S7 and S13. As the system size grows, the CT1 state is increasingly found to correspond to the first excited state (S1) of the cluster: S1 has a CT character in ca. 80% of the C60/3P systems and 90% of the 2C60/6P systems; in the 3C60/7P clusters, S1 is always a CT state. The calculated average value of the vertical CT1 energy for the 3C60/7P complexes is 1.25 eV. Recent external quantum efficiency (EQE) measurements indicate that the lowest CT band in a planar heterojunction made of nanocrystalline pentacene and C60 is characterized by an adiabatic transition energy of about 1.0 eV and a reorganization energy (λ) of about 0.3 eV.11 Using the TDDFT estimate of the vertical CT1 energy and the experimental λ value, we derive a value of 0.95 eV for the average adiabatic CT1 energy in the 3C60/7P complexes, which is fully consistent with the experiment value. In general, in the larger clusters, there can appear several singlet CT states below the lowest strongly absorbing local (i.e., intramolecular) excited state. The energetics and density of these states are important to understand exciton dissociation, geminate recombination, and the formation of free carriers. Higher-energy CT states along with CT1 also contribute to the low-energy part of the absorption spectrum and EQE. As seen from Table 1, the energy difference between CT2 and CT1 is on the order of 0.1 eV, irrespective of system size. It is computationally very time-consuming to evaluate all of the excited states of interest in the 2C60/6P and 3C60/7P complexes. However, the calculations for the C60/3P complexes indicate that even in such relatively small-size systems, there could be more than 20 pentacene-to-C60 or pentacene-topentacene intermolecular CT states below the bright pentacene local state at 2.2 eV. The calculations also indicate that higher-energy CT states can originate from what can be considered as excited states of the charged donor (cation) or acceptor (anion). As an example,

Figure 4. Natural transition orbitals and energies of the lowest three singlet CT states for the 2C60/6P complex # 6.

#6 (see SI). The hole-NTO in each case represents a linear combination of pentacene HOMOs. However, the electronNTO of the second CT state is very different from that of the first and third excited CT states and actually corresponds to an excited configuration of the fullerene anion. As a result, the relaxation from CT3 to CT2 represents a complex combination of hole transfer within the pentacene subsystem and internal conversion within the radical-anion states of C60; on the other hand, the transition from CT2 to CT1 represents a simple intramolecular conversion process that should therefore be much faster than the CT3 → CT2 transition. As we underlined above, the natures of the CT states depend on electron delocalization, electronic polarization, and disorder. All of these factors are strongly dependent on the geometry (morphology) of the systems. Figure 5 illustrates the NTOs describing the CT1 states in the six investigated 3C60/7P complexes. Complex #4 has the lowest CT1 energy and also shows the largest delocalization of both hole and electron. However, CT1 in complex #1, despite its extensive delocalization, has a higher energy than CT1 in complex #6 where both hole and electron are largely localized on a single donor unit and acceptor unit, respectively. As in the case of the frontier orbitals, the electronic polarization is found to have the largest impact on the energy of the CT states in these systems. Charge Transfer Triplets States. We also investigated the lowest-energy triplet CT states. We note that the lowest triplet CT state is located above the singlet CT states in 32% and 14% 18098


Research Article


locate the lowest triplet CT state ca. 5−50 meV below the singlet CT state in several donor−acceptor blends.53−55 While in general the average Δ|Es‑t| energy decreases in going from C60/P to C60/3P and then to 2C60/6P, this energy increases somewhat in the case of 3C60/7P systems (we note, however, that in these 3C60/7P systems the calculations for the triplet states converged only in the case of two of the clusters). Radiative and Nonradiative Charge Recombination Rates. Singlet CT states can decay to the ground state via both radiative and nonradiative electron transfer. Charge recombination can also occur via local donor and acceptor triplet states.15 The averaged electronic couplings related to these two recombination channels are given in Table 3. The electronic Table 3. Average S0-1CT1 and T1-3CT1 Electronic Couplings and Their Standard Deviations (σ) [in meV] Derived at the Tuned-BNL/6-31G(d) Level S0-1CT1 C60/Pen C60/3Pen 2C60/6Pen 3C60/7Pen

of the C60/P and C60/3P clusters, respectively; in the case of the 2C60/6P and 3C60/7P systems, all the lowest CT states are triplets. This evolution might be related to the fact that, as the energy of CT states decreases with the increase in system size, the interactions among diabatic local and CT triplet states become larger than in the case of singlet states. However, further investigations are clearly required to pinpoint more definitely the origin of the results. The absolute triplet-singlet splitting energies (Δ|Es‑t |), averaged over each set of systems of the same size, are given in Table 2. The calculations indicate that the average singlet− triplet energy splitting does not exceed 10 meV. However, as result of disorder these energies show a significant standard deviation. As seen we note that experimental measurements

C60/P C60/3P 2C60/6Pa 3C60/7Pa

ave

σ

ave

σ

0.95 0.85 0.92 0.88

2.18 1.54 1.39 1.13

0.08 0.09

8.2 3.6 1.3 4.0

21.5 14.5

ave

σ

12 13 11 13

14 13 11 8

10 8 10 7

13 9

CT1→S0

1

C60/P C60/3P 2C60/6P 3C60/7P

3

CT1→T1

radiative

nonradiative

nonradiative

Ar rate (s−1)

knr rate (s−1)

knr rate (s−1)

7.0 2.2 1.1 9.6

× × × ×

5

10 105 105 104

−14

5.4 × 10 2.8 × 103 1.8 × 105 1.1 × 108

1.5 × 108 3.4 × 1012 4.6 × 1012 0.2 × 1012

0.3 eV value for the reorganization energy (λ) estimated from the EQE measurements;11 we also took the experimental value of 0.86 eV for the energy of the lowest triplet exciton state in pentacene,56,57 which puts this state by about 0.1 eV below the 1 CT1 state. In agreement with previous work,16 the radiative rate constant for the transition from the lowest singlet CT state to the ground state is found to be about 105 s−1, irrespective of system size. Due to the lowering of the 1CT1 energy, the nonradiative recombination rate from this state to the ground state increases with an increase in cluster size and reaches an average value of 1.1 × 108 s−1 in 3C60/7P. This value is, however, about 4 orders of magnitude smaller than the average rate for the 3CT1 → T1 electron transfer pathway.

Δ|Es‑t|/meV

ave

σ

Table 4. Radiative (Ar) and Nonradiative (knr) Rates for the 1 CT1 → S0 and 3CT1 → T1 Decay Processes

Table 2. Average Charges (QCT/e-) and Energy of the Lowest Triplet CT States as well as Average CT SingletTriplet Splitting Energy (ΔEs‑t) and Their Standard Deviations (σ), Obtained at Tuned-BNL/6-31G(d) Level E(3CT1)/eV

ave

couplings are calculated to be very similar irrespective of the system size; this can be understood on the basis that, due to site-energy disorder, the CT states on average are localized on just a few donor and acceptor sites. The electronic couplings between local pentacene triplet states and triplet CT states show the same trend and are only slightly smaller than those involving singlet states. The rates computed for the nonradiative 1CT1 → S0 and 3 CT1 → T1 recombination pathways along with the radiative constants for the 1CT1 → S0 transition are summarized in Table 4 (see also Figure S11). In these calculations, we used the

Figure 5. Natural transition orbitals and energies of the lowest singlet 1 CT1 states for the six 3C60/7P clusters (#1−#6, see Figure S3 in the SI).

Q (3CT1)

T1-3CT1

a These averages are computed from fewer configurations than those used for singlet CT states (see SI). See Figures S8−S10 and Tables S15−S18 for the individual triplet CT state energies.

18099


Research Article


• The adiabatic energy of the lowest charge transfer state in 3C60/7P clusters is about 0.95 eV, which is in close agreement with the results of recent EQE measurements, with the next CT state located about 0.1 eV above CT1. • The average singlet−triplet splitting energy of the lowest CT states does not exceed 10 meV. In all larger 2C60/6P and 3C60/7P systems, the lowest CT state is a triplet. • In the large pentacene/C60 clusters, the transition rates from the triplet CT state to the local triplet state are up to 4 orders of magnitude faster than the transition rate from the singlet CT states to the ground state. However, in agreement with experimental data, the reverse upconversion from the local triplet states to the CT triplet states is also fast, in the picosecond regime, which is several orders of magnitude faster than the decay rate of the local excitons to the ground state. This explains why pentacene triplet excitons generated through singlet fission can efficiently split at pentacene/C60 heterojunctions. • The overall decay kinetics of triplet CT states in pentacene/C60 heterojunctions is controlled by the lifetime of the local triplet excitons and, in these systems, is comparable with those of the singlet CT states. Finally, we note that further investigations are needed, in particular regarding the estimation of intersystem crossing rates among CT states, in order to get a better understanding of the spin-dependent charge-recombination processes in pentacene/ C60 and other donor/acceptor heterojunctions.

Triplet Exciton Dissociation Rate. It was recently shown that the EQE could exceed 100% in pentacene/C60 solar cells.58 The reason is that the pentacene singlet exciton can split (via a singlet fission process) within 80 fs into a pair of triplet excitons,59 which can then dissociate at the pentacene/C60 interface.58 Transient absorption spectroscopy measurements on devices based on 150 nm-thick pentacene films found that the decay of triplet excitons and charge generation occur within 2−10 ns after photoexcitation.60 However, the time-resolved two-photon photoemission spectroscopy (TR-2PPE) data obtained for devices based on very thin pentacene films, where excitons are formed directly at the pentacene/C60 interface (and thus where the exciton dissociation time is not limited by any diffusion process), indicate that the triplet exciton dissociation rate is about 2 × 1011 s−1.61 In order to assess whether the energy levels and the electronic couplings obtained with our methodology are consistent with these experimental findings, we computed the rate of triplet exciton dissociation (see Table 5). The calculations show that the Table 5. Average Triplet Exciton, T1 → 3CT1, Dissociation Rates (s−1) C60/P C60/3P 2C60/6P 3C60/7P

7.7 3.7 8.0 1.3

× × × ×

10−6 107 109 1011

dissociation rate of triplet excitons in 3C60/7P clusters is about 1.3 × 1011 s−1, which is in good agreement with the TR-2PPE estimate. Our results, taken together with the fact that triplet excitons in pentacene are long-lived (5 ns in polycrystalline films and about 2 orders of magnitude longer in the single crystal)60,62 and assuming that the transition from the triplet CT states to free charges is fast enough, explain why triplet excitons can split very efficiently in pentacene/C60 heterojunctions even though the molecular triplet states are slightly lower in energy than the CT triplet states. Based on the same arguments, we can also conclude that the nonradiative decay of CT triplet states is controlled by the lifetime of the local triplet states; as a result, the decay kinetics of triplet and singlet CT states to the ground state are comparable.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b02193. The configurations, natural transition orbitals, HOMO/ LUMO energies, CT state energies, and electronic couplings are given for all the investigated complexes. (PDF)

■

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Authors

*E-mail: [email protected]. *E-mail: [email protected].

CONCLUSIONS We have investigated the nature of the singlet and triplet CT states at realistic planar interfaces between pentacene and C60, as derived from molecular dynamics simulations. In particular, we were interested in examining the impact of charge delocalization, electronic polarization, and energetic disorder on the frontier orbitals and CT states. Our calculations indicate that, when increasing the size of C60/pentacene clusters from C60/P to 3C60/7P, the LUMO−HOMO gap decreases by 1.2 eV, which leads to a decrease of the lowest CT state energy by 1 eV. This decrease in energy is due to both electron delocalization and electronic polarization effects. The electronic polarization is seen to play a dual role as it also contributes to the energetic disorder that acts to limit the impact of charge delocalization on the frontier orbitals and CT states. Given the more complex energetic landscape displayed by these more realistic interfaces (with respect to model systems with just a single donor and a single acceptor), other salient results of our work are as follows:

ORCID

Naga Rajesh Tummala: 0000-0001-9957-6330 Veaceslav Coropceanu: 0000-0003-1693-2315 Jean-Luc Brédas: 0000-0001-7278-4471 Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the financial support of this work at the Georgia Institute of Technology by the Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, under the MURI “Center for Advanced Organic Photovoltaics” (Award Nos. N00014-14-10580 and N00014-16-1-2520) and by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (V.C.). A KAUST competitive research funding and the Office of Naval Research − Global (Award No. N62909-15-1-2003) supported the work at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. 18100


Research Article


■

(18) Lee, M. H.; Dunietz, B. D.; Geva, E. Donor-to-Donor vs Donorto-Acceptor Interfacial Charge Transfer States in the PhthalocyanineFullerene Organic Photovoltaic System. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 3810−6. (19) Lin, B.-C.; Koo, B. T.; Clancy, P.; Hsu, C.-P. Theoretical Investigation of Charge-Transfer Processes at Pentacene−C60 Interface: The Importance of Triplet Charge Separation and Marcus Electron Transfer Theory. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 23605−23613. (20) Ma, H.; Troisi, A. Direct Optical Generation of Long-Range Charge-Transfer States in Organic Photovoltaics. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 6163−7. (21) Manna, A. K.; Balamurugan, D.; Cheung, M. S.; Dunietz, B. D. Unraveling the Mechanism of Photoinduced Charge Transfer in Carotenoid-Porphyrin-C60 Molecular Triad. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 1231−7. (22) Tamura, H.; Burghardt, I. Ultrafast Charge Separation in Organic Photovoltaics Enhanced by Charge Delocalization and Vibronically Hot Exciton Dissociation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2013, 135, 16364−7. (23) Zhao, Y.; Liang, W. Charge Transfer in Organic Molecules for Solar Cells: Theoretical Perspective. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 1075− 87. (24) Zheng, Z.; Bredas, J. L.; Coropceanu, V. Description of the Charge Transfer States at the Pentacene/C60 Interface: Combining Range-Separated Hybrid Functionals with the Polarizable Continuum Model. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 2616−2621. (25) Yang, B.; Yi, Y. P.; Zhang, C. R.; Aziz, S. G.; Coropceanu, V.; Bredas, J. L. Impact of Electron De localization on the Nature of the Charge-Transfer States in Model Pentacene/C60 Interfaces: A Density Functional Theory Study. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118, 27648−27656. (26) Zhang, C.-R.; Sears, J. S.; Yang, B.; Aziz, S. G.; Coropceanu, V.; Bredas, J.-L. Theoretical Study of the Local and Charge-Transfer Excitations in Model Complexes of Pentacene-C60 Using Tuned Range-Separated Hybrid Functionals. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 2379−2388. (27) Minami, T.; Ito, S.; Nakano, M. Functional Dependence of Excitation Energy for Pentacene/C60 Model Complex in the Nonempirically Tuned Long-Range Corrected Density Functional Theory. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2013, 113, 252−256. (28) Minami, T.; Nakano, M.; Castet, F. Nonempirically Tuned Long-Range Corrected Density Functional Theory Study on Local and Charge-Transfer Excitation Energies in a Pentacene/C60 Model Complex. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2011, 2, 1725−1730. (29) Sampat, S.; Mohite, A. D.; Crone, B.; Tretiak, S.; Malko, A. V.; Taylor, A. J.; Yarotski, D. A. Tunable Charge Transfer Dynamics at Tetracene/LiF/C60 Interfaces. J. Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 1286− 1290. (30) Niedzialek, D.; Duchemin, I.; de Queiroz, T. B.; Osella, S.; Rao, A.; Friend, R.; Blase, X.; Kümmel, S.; Beljonne, D. First Principles Calculations of Charge Transfer Excitations in Polymer−Fullerene Complexes: Influence of Excess Energy. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2015, 25, 1972−1984. (31) D’Avino, G.; Muccioli, L.; Olivier, Y.; Beljonne, D. Charge Separation and Recombination at Polymer−Fullerene Heterojunctions: Delocalization and Hybridization Effects. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2016, 7, 536−540. (32) Akimov, A. V.; Prezhdo, O. V. Nonadiabatic Dynamics of Charge Transfer and Singlet Fission at the Pentacene/C60 Interface. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 1599−1608. (33) Liu, X.; Ding, K.; Panda, A.; Forrest, S. R. Charge Transfer States in Dilute Donor-Acceptor Blend Organic Heterojunctions. ACS Nano 2016, 10, 7619−26. (34) Nan, G.; Zhang, X.; Lu, G. The Lowest-Energy Charge-Transfer State and its Role in Charge Separation in Organic Photovoltaics. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 17546−17556. (35) Fu, Y.-T.; Risko, C.; Brédas, J.-L. Intermixing at the PentaceneFullerene Bilayer Interface: A Molecular Dynamics Study. Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 878−882.

REFERENCES

(1) Sariciftci, N. S.; Smilowitz, L.; Heeger, A. J.; Wudl, F. Photoinduced Electron Transfer from a Conducting Polymer to Buckminsterfullerene. Science 1992, 258, 1474−1476. (2) Bakulin, A. A.; Rao, A.; Pavelyev, V. G.; van Loosdrecht, P. H. M.; Pshenichnikov, M. S.; Niedzialek, D.; Cornil, J.; Beljonne, D.; Friend, R. H. The Role of Driving Energy and Delocalized States for Charge Separation in Organic Semiconductors. Science 2012, 335, 1340−1344. (3) Bredas, J. L.; Norton, J. E.; Cornil, J.; Coropceanu, V. Molecular Understanding of Organic Solar Cells: The Challenges. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009, 42, 1691−1699. (4) Vandewal, K.; Albrecht, S.; Hoke, E. T.; Graham, K. R.; Widmer, J.; Douglas, J. D.; Schubert, M.; Mateker, W. R.; Bloking, J. T.; Burkhard, G. F.; Sellinger, A.; Fréchet, J. M. J.; Amassian, A.; Riede, M. K.; McGehee, M. D.; Neher, D.; Salleo, A. Efficient Charge Generation by Relaxed Charge-Transfer States at Organic Interfaces. Nat. Mater. 2013, 13, 63−68. (5) Deibel, C.; Strobel, T.; Dyakonov, V. Role of the Charge Transfer State in Organic Donor−Acceptor Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 4097−4111. (6) Vandewal, K. Interfacial Charge Transfer States in Condensed Phase Systems. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2016, 67, 113−133. (7) Su, W.-C.; Lee, C.-C.; Li, Y.-Z.; Liu, S.-W. Influence of Singlet and Charge-Transfer Excitons on the Open-Circuit Voltage of Rubrene/Fullerene Organic Photovoltaic Device. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 28757−28762. (8) Deotare, P. B.; Chang, W.; Hontz, E.; Congreve, D. N.; Shi, L.; Reusswig, P. D.; Modtland, B.; Bahlke, M. E.; Lee, C. K.; Willard, A. P.; Bulovic, V.; Van Voorhis, T.; Baldo, M. A. Nanoscale Transport of Charge-Transfer States in Organic Donor-Acceptor Blends. Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 1130−1134. (9) Devižis, A.; De Jonghe-Risse, J.; Hany, R.; Nüesch, F.; Jenatsch, S.; Gulbinas, V.; Moser, J.-E. Dissociation of Charge Transfer States and Carrier Separation in Bilayer Organic Solar Cells: A TimeResolved Electroabsorption Spectroscopy Study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 8192−8198. (10) Guan, Z.; Li, H. W.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, Y.; Yang, Q.; Lo, M. F.; Ng, T. W.; Tsang, S. W.; Lee, C. S. Evidence of Delocalization in Charge-Transfer State Manifold for Donor:Acceptor Organic Photovoltaics. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 21798−805. (11) Brigeman, A. N.; Fusella, M. A.; Yan, Y.; Purdum, G. E.; Loo, Y.L.; Rand, B. P.; Giebink, N. C. Revealing the Full Charge Transfer State Absorption Spectrum of Organic Solar Cells. Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1601001. (12) Jailaubekov, A. E.; Willard, A. P.; Tritsch, J. R.; Chan, W.-L.; Sai, N.; Gearba, R.; Kaake, L. G.; Williams, K. J.; Leung, K.; Rossky, P. J.; Zhu, X. Y. Hot Charge-Transfer Excitons set the Time Limit for Charge Separation at Donor/Acceptor Interfaces in Organic Photovoltaics. Nat. Mater. 2012, 12, 66−73. (13) Reinhard, S.; Regina, L.; Gotthard, S.; Till, J.-H.; Christian, K.; Karl, L.; Mathias, R. Quantifying Charge Transfer Energies at Donor− Acceptor Interfaces in Small-Molecule Solar Cells with Constrained DFTB and Spectroscopic Methods. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2013, 25, 473201. (14) Shen, X.; Han, G.; Yi, Y. The Nature of Excited States in Dipolar Donor/Fullerene Complexes for Organic Solar Cells: Evolution with the Donor Stack Size. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 15955− 15963. (15) Yi, Y. P.; Coropceanu, V.; Bredas, J. L. Exciton-Dissociation and Charge-Recombination Processes in Pentacene/C60 Solar Cells: Theoretical Insight into the Impact of Interface Geometry. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 15777−15783. (16) Chen, X.-K.; Ravva, M. K.; Li, H.; Ryno, S. M.; Brédas, J.-L. Effect of Molecular Packing and Charge Delocalization on the Nonradiative Recombination of Charge-Transfer States in Organic Solar Cells. Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1601325. (17) Few, S.; Frost, J. M.; Nelson, J. Models of Charge Pair Generation in Organic Solar Cells. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 2311−25. 18101


Research Article

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (36) Baer, R.; Neuhauser, D. Density Functional Theory with Correct Long-Range Asymptotic Behavior. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94, 043002. (37) Stein, T.; Kronik, L.; Baer, R. Prediction of Charge-Transfer Excitations in Coumarin-Based Dyes using a Range-Separated Functional Tuned from First Principles. J. Chem. Phys. 2009, 131, 244119. (38) Baer, R.; Livshits, E.; Salzner, U. Tuned Range-Separated Hybrids in Density Functional Theory. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2010, 61, 85−109. (39) Chai, J. D.; Head-Gordon, M. Long-Range Corrected Hybrid Density Functionals with Damped Atom-Atom Dispersion Corrections. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008, 10, 6615−6620. (40) Marcus, R. A. Electron Transfer Reactions in Chemistry. Theory and Experiment. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1993, 65, 599−610. (41) Barbara, P. F.; Meyer, T. J.; Ratner, M. A. Contemporary Issues in Electron Transfer Research. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 13148− 13168. (42) Voityuk, A. A.; Rösch, N. Fragment Charge Difference Method for Estimating Donor−Acceptor Electronic Coupling: Application to DNA π-Stacks. J. Chem. Phys. 2002, 117, 5607−5616. (43) Cave, R. J.; Newton, M. D. Generalization of the Mulliken-Hush Treatment for the Calculation of Electron Transfer Matrix Elements. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1996, 249, 15−19. (44) Valeev, E. F.; Coropceanu, V.; da Silva Filho, D. A.; Salman, S.; Bredas, J. L. Effect of Electronic Polarization on Charge-Transport Parameters in Molecular Organic Semiconductors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 9882−9886. (45) Marenich, A. V.; Jerome, S. V.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. Charge Model 5: An Extension of Hirshfeld Population Analysis for the Accurate Description of Molecular Interactions in Gaseous and Condensed Phases. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 527−541. (46) Frisch, M. J.; Trucks, G. W.; Schlegel, H. B.; Scuseria, G. E.; Robb, M. A.; Cheeseman, J. R.; Scalmani, G.; Barone, V.; Mennucci, B.; Petersson, G. A.; Nakatsuji, H.; Caricato, M.; Li, X.; Hratchian, H. P.; Izmaylov, A. F.; Bloino, J.; Zheng, G.; Sonnenberg, J. L.; Hada, M.; Ehara, M.; Toyota, K.; Fukuda, R.; Hasegawa, J.; Ishida, M.; Nakajima, T.; Honda, Y.; Kitao, O.; Nakai, H.; Vreven, T.; Montgomery, J. A., Jr.; Peralta, J. E.; Ogliaro, F.; Bearpark, M. J.; Heyd, J.; Brothers, E. N.; Kudin, K. N.; Staroverov, V. N.; Kobayashi, R.; Normand, J.; Raghavachari, K.; Rendell, A. P.; Burant, J. C.; Iyengar, S. S.; Tomasi, J.; Cossi, M.; Rega, N.; Millam, N. J.; Klene, M.; Knox, J. E.; Cross, J. B.; Bakken, V.; Adamo, C.; Jaramillo, J.; Gomperts, R.; Stratmann, R. E.; Yazyev, O.; Austin, A. J.; Cammi, R.; Pomelli, C.; Ochterski, J. W.; Martin, R. L.; Morokuma, K.; Zakrzewski, V. G.; Voth, G. A.; Salvador, P.; Dannenberg, J. J.; Dapprich, S.; Daniels, A. D.; Farkas, Ö .; Foresman, J. B.; Ortiz, J. V.; Cioslowski, J.; Fox, D. J. Gaussian 09, Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT, 2009. (47) Shao, Y.; Molnar, L. F.; Jung, Y.; Kussmann, J.; Ochsenfeld, C.; Brown, S. T.; Gilbert, A. T. B.; Slipchenko, L. V.; Levchenko, S. V.; O’Neill, D. P.; DiStasio, R. A., Jr; Lochan, R. C.; Wang, T.; Beran, G. J. O.; Besley, N. A.; Herbert, J. M.; Yeh Lin, C.; Van Voorhis, T.; Hung Chien, S.; Sodt, A.; Steele, R. P.; Rassolov, V. A.; Maslen, P. E.; Korambath, P. P.; Adamson, R. D.; Austin, B.; Baker, J.; Byrd, E. F. C.; Dachsel, H.; Doerksen, R. J.; Dreuw, A.; Dunietz, B. D.; Dutoi, A. D.; Furlani, T. R.; Gwaltney, S. R.; Heyden, A.; Hirata, S.; Hsu, C.-P.; Kedziora, G.; Khalliulin, R. Z.; Klunzinger, P.; Lee, A. M.; Lee, M. S.; Liang, W.; Lotan, I.; Nair, N.; Peters, B.; Proynov, E. I.; Pieniazek, P. A.; Min Rhee, Y.; Ritchie, J.; Rosta, E.; David Sherrill, C.; Simmonett, A. C.; Subotnik, J. E.; Lee Woodcock Iii, H.; Zhang, W.; Bell, A. T.; Chakraborty, A. K.; Chipman, D. M.; Keil, F. J.; Warshel, A.; Hehre, W. J.; Schaefer Iii, H. F.; Kong, J.; Krylov, A. I.; Gill, P. M. W.; HeadGordon, M. Advances in Methods and Algorithms in a Modern Quantum Chemistry Program Package. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2006, 8, 3172−3191. (48) Coropceanu, V.; Cornil, J.; da Silva Filho, D. A.; Olivier, Y.; Silbey, R.; Brédas, J. L. Charge Transport in Organic Semiconductors. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 926−952.

(49) Tummala, N. R.; Zheng, Z.; Aziz, S. G.; Coropceanu, V.; Brédas, J.-L. Static and Dynamic Energetic Disorders in the C60, PC61BM, C70, and PC71BM Fullerenes. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 3657− 3662. (50) Savoie, B. M.; Rao, A.; Bakulin, A. A.; Gelinas, S.; Movaghar, B.; Friend, R. H.; Marks, T. J.; Ratner, M. A. Unequal Partnership: Asymmetric Roles of Polymeric Donor and Fullerene Acceptor in Generating Free Charge. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2014, 136, 2876−2884. (51) Gelinas, S.; Rao, A.; Kumar, A.; Smith, S. L.; Chin, A. W.; Clark, J.; van der Poll, T. S.; Bazan, G. C.; Friend, R. H. Ultrafast Long-Range Charge Separation in Organic Semiconductor Photovoltaic Diodes. Science 2014, 343, 512−516. (52) The transfer integrals related to hole and electron transfers were computed with the Gaussian-09 package. However, since Gaussian-09 does not support the BNL functional, these calculations had to be carried out with another, equally performing functional, the ωB97XD functional. As discussed in the text (see also SI), the calculations based on the optimally tuned ωB97XD and BNL functionals yield very similar electronic-structure results. (53) Chang, W.; Congreve, D. N.; Hontz, E.; Bahlke, M. E.; McMahon, D. P.; Reineke, S.; Wu, T. C.; Bulovic, V.; Van Voorhis, T.; Baldo, M. A. Spin-Dependent Charge Transfer State Design Rules in Organic Photovoltaics. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6415. (54) Goushi, K.; Yoshida, K.; Sato, K.; Adachi, C. Organic LightEmitting Diodes Employing Efficient Reverse Intersystem Crossing for Triplet-to-Singlet State Conversion. Nat. Photonics 2012, 6, 253−258. (55) Graves, D.; Jankus, V.; Dias, F. B.; Monkman, A. Photophysical Investigation of the Thermally Activated Delayed Emission from Films of m-MTDATA: PBD Exciplex. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2014, 24, 2343− 2351. (56) Burgos, J.; Pope, M.; Swenberg, Ch. E.; Alfano, R. R. Heterofission in Pentacene-Doped Tetracene Single Crystals. Phys. Status Solidi B 1977, 83, 249−256. (57) Ehrler, B.; Walker, B. J.; Bohm, M. L.; Wilson, M. W. B.; Vaynzof, Y.; Friend, R. H.; Greenham, N. C. In Situ Measurement of Exciton Energy in Hybrid Singlet-Fission Solar Cells. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 1019. (58) Lee, J.; Jadhav, P.; Reusswig, P. D.; Yost, S. R.; Thompson, N. J.; Congreve, D. N.; Hontz, E.; Van Voorhis, T.; Baldo, M. A. Singlet Exciton Fission Photovoltaics. Acc. Chem. Res. 2013, 46, 1300−1311. (59) Wilson, M. W. B.; Rao, A.; Clark, J.; Kumar, R. S. S.; Brida, D.; Cerullo, G.; Friend, R. H. Ultrafast Dynamics of Exciton Fission in Polycrystalline Pentacene. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 11830−11833. (60) Rao, A.; Wilson, M. W. B.; Hodgkiss, J. M.; Albert-Seifried, S.; Bassler, H.; Friend, R. H. Exciton Fission and Charge Generation via Triplet Excitons in Pentacene/C60 Bilayers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132, 12698−12703. (61) Chan, W. L.; Ligges, M.; Jailaubekov, A.; Kaake, L.; Miaja-Avila, L.; Zhu, X. Y. Observing the Multiexciton State in Singlet Fission and Ensuing Ultrafast Multielectron Transfer. Science 2011, 334, 1541− 1545. (62) Poletayev, A. D.; Clark, J.; Wilson, M. W. B.; Rao, A.; Makino, Y.; Hotta, S.; Friend, R. H. Triplet Dynamics in Pentacene Crystals: Applications to Fission-Sensitized Photovoltaics. Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 919−924.

18102


Charge-Transfer States in Organic Solar Cells: Understanding the

Recommend Documents