Demonstrates how stoichiometry affects luminescence in cocrystal formations, implying design strategies for optoelectronic materials.
Two charge-transfer cocrystals of 2-hydroxymethylbenzimidazole (2HMEBI) and 1,2,4,5-tetracyanobenzene (TCNB), with stoichiometric ratios of 1:1 (2HMETC-1) and 2:1 (2HMETC-2), were successfully prepared via a solvent-induced method. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction revealed distinct hydrogen-bonding networks and π–π stacking motifs: 2HMETC-1 features a rigid alternating donor–acceptor layered structure held together by hydrogen bonds, whereas 2HMETC-2 exhibits a continuous hydrogen-bonded layer of 2HMEBI with TCNB molecules embedded as guests. Despite both cocrystals displaying similar steady-state emission peaks at approximately 497 nm, their fluorescence lifetimes differ dramatically─39.34 ns for 2HMETC-1 versus 0.72 ns for 2HMETC-2, a difference of about 55-fold. Combined Hirshfeld surface analysis, thermogravimetric-infrared analysis, solid-state UV–vis absorption, time-resolved fluorescence, and quantum yield measurements revealed the origin of this extreme difference: the rigid, preorganized donor–acceptor packing in 2HMETC-1 effectively suppresses nonradiative decay (with a nonradiative rate constant knr = 2.31 × 107 s–1), whereas the lack of rigid anchoring in 2HMETC-2 leads to a dominant nonradiative channel (knr = 1.36 × 109 s–1). Furthermore, 2HMETC-1 exhibits reversible fluorescence switching upon exposure to acid–base vapors. This work elucidates how stoichiometry governs the hydrogen-bonding network and thereby controls donor–acceptor packing rigidity and luminescence dynamics, providing a new strategy for the rational design of organic optoelectronic materials with tunable fluorescence lifetimes through crystal engineering.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: