Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A study on thermogravimetric analyses, surface photovoltage (SPV), electron paramagnetic resonance and electrochemical properties comparing a porphyrin dimer with that of corresponding monomer was presented. The SPV intensity is weaker than that corresponding monomer, and with field-induced surface photovoltage spectroscopy (FISPS) reveal that all the compounds are p-type semiconductors. The spectral bands of all the porphyrins corresponded to π → π* transitions. Electrons (or holes) can be trapped on the porphyrins by applying both light and negative (or positive) electric field. The electrochemistry and EPR of the porphyrins show clearly that a π–π interaction existed between the two macrocycles of the dimer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fa et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: