Two ruthenium sensitizers, [Ru(dcbpy)(opip)(NCS)2] (JF-1, dcbpy = 4,4′-dicarboxylic acid-2,2′-bipyridine, opip = 2-(4-octylphenyl)-1H-imidazo[4,5-f][1,10]phenanthroline) and [Ru(dcbpy)(otip)(NCS)2] (JF-2, otip = 2-(5-octylthiophen-2-yl)-1H-imidazo[4,5-f][1,10]phenanthroline), with unusually high power-conversion efficiency in comparison with other ruthenium complexes containing 1,10-phenanthroline-based ligands were designed. The power-conversion efficiency of JF-2 is 20% higher than that of JF-1, due to the modification of the ancillary ligand with a thiophene moiety. The origins of this device performance diversity are illustrated by photophysical properties, electrochemical data and density functional theory (DFT) studies. The greater device performance of JF-2 compared to JF-1 was caused from the broader MLCT distribution, the appropriate localization of the frontier orbitals and the stronger driving force of the charge injection and regeneration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yin et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: