Issue 36, 2018

Reply to the ‘Comment on “Metal–organic green dye: chemical and physical insight into a modified Zn-benzoporphyrin for dye-sensitized solar cells”’ by R. Steer, RSC Advances, 2018, DOI: 10.1039/c8ra00213d

Abstract

The authors reply to the comment by R. P. Steer discussing the reasons for their incorrect assignment of the luminescence decay of the novel compound 5,10,15-(triphenyl),20-[ethynyl-(4-carboxy)phenyl]tetrabenzoporphyrinate Zn(II) (PETBP). Further DFT and TDDFT calculations have been performed on the compound to investigate the possibility of a direct S2–S0 decay instead of a S2–S1 conversion with a subsequent emission to the ground state. In addition, the presence of traces of very luminescent contaminants of the ring-opened type has been considered on the grounds of calculated absorption and fluorescence spectra. The results of these investigations confirm that the S2–S0 emission reported in the commented paper is not attributable to the target molecule but rather to a neglected luminescent impurity.

Associated articles

Supplementary files

Article information

Article type
Comment
Submitted
24 Feb 2018
Accepted
01 May 2018
First published
04 Jun 2018
This article is Open Access
Creative Commons BY license

RSC Adv., 2018,8, 20259-20262

Reply to the ‘Comment on “Metal–organic green dye: chemical and physical insight into a modified Zn-benzoporphyrin for dye-sensitized solar cells”’ by R. Steer, RSC Advances, 2018, DOI: 10.1039/c8ra00213d

G. Zanotti, N. Angelini, G. Mattioli, A. M. Paoletti, G. Pennesi, G. Rossi, D. Caschera, L. de Marco and G. Gigli, RSC Adv., 2018, 8, 20259 DOI: 10.1039/C8RA01651H

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Social activity

Spotlight

Advertisements