Sven M.
Elbert
a,
Evelin
Bolgert
a,
Owen T. A.
Paine
a,
Farhad
Ghalami
b,
Wen-Shan
Zhang
a,
Ute
Zschieschang
c,
Frank
Rominger
a,
Dennis
Popp
a,
Hagen
Klauk
c,
Marcus
Elstner
b and
Michael
Mastalerz
*a
aInstitute of Organic Chemistry, Ruprecht-Karls-Universtity Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 270, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. E-mail: michael.mastalerz@oci.uni-heidelberg.de
bInstitute of Physical Chemistry and Theoretical Chemical Chemistry, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kaiserstraße 12, D-76131, Karlsruhe, Germany
cMax Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstr. 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
First published on 30th July 2024
Z-shaped polycyclic hydrocarbons with embedded five-membered rings as well as their diaza-analogues have been synthesized. Soluble congeners were obtained by the introduction of mesityl substituents and studied by cyclo- as well as differential pulse voltammetry revealing an amphoteric redox behavior. Unsubstituted congeners showed close π-stacking in single crystal X-ray diffraction analyses and thus promising characteristics for the application as semiconducting materials in p-channel thin-film transistors (TFTs). The hole transport characteristics of the corresponding devices were investigated by GIWAXS.
Fig. 1 Top: Molecular structures of acenaphtho[1,2-k]fluoranthene16 (left) and 1,2:9,10-dibenzoheptazethrene20 (right) and the hypothetical structural relationship to the dibenzoacenaphthofluoranthenes (DBAFs; middle). Bottom: Structure of rubicene (left),22,23 dibenzo[a,m]rubicene12 and diaza zethrenes.27 |
Besides cp-PAHs, zethrenes are another class of Z-shaped PAHs with exceptional properties.18,19 They have biradical character with indices up to γ0 = 0.58. The γ0-values were tuned by benzannulation as shown in the cases of the 1,2:9,10-, and the 5,6:13,14-dibenzoheptazethrenes (short: DBHZ; Fig. 1).20 Furthermore, for organic field effect transistors (OFETs) based on single crystals of a DBHZ, a hole mobility up to 0.15 cm2 V−1 s−1 was obtained.21
Rubicenes14,22–25 and some of their extended congeners are rare examples combining both, a molecular Z-shape with embedded five-membered rings which is created by a phenyl–anthracenyl–phenyl scaffold (Fig. 1).26 We envisioned to extend the portfolio of PAHs (or cp-PAHs) in this respect by a series of compounds which can be understood either as benzannulated acenaphtofluoranthenes or as 1,2:9,10-dibenzoheptazethrenes with two six-membered rings formally substituted by five-membered ones (shown in blue and red in Fig. 1). Therefore, these compounds are named dibenzoacenaphthofluoranthenes, abbreviated as DBAFs. The DBAFs have an “inverted” anthracenyl-phenyl-anthracenyl scaffold in comparison to rubicenes (Fig. 1).26
By simple modifications of the molecular precursors, nitrogen substituted analogues (the DBAF-N2s) are accessible to investigate the influence of nitrogen substitution on the compounds' properties which was for example realized for diazahepta and octazethrenes27–29 (Fig. 1) and is generally rare in the field of cp-PAHs.30,31
Subjecting the four dichlorinated precursors 5–8 to typical conditions for arylations under C–H-activation (PdCl2(PCy3)2, DBU, DMAc, 200 °C, 48 h)34–41 gave after sublimation unsubstituted DBAF in 96% and DBAF-N2 in 55% yield as well as the mesityl substituted mes-DBAF in 33% and mes-DBAF-N2 in 69% after column chromatography (Scheme 1). The parent DBAF and DBAF-N2 are poorly soluble in common organic solvents at room temperature and NMR spectroscopy had to be performed in ortho-dichlorobenzene-d4 at elevated temperatures (323 K; see ESI‡). The successful pentannulations have been proven by 1D- and 2D-NMR spectroscopy as well as mass spectrometry (see ESI‡) and by SCXRD analyses (see discussion below).
The optical properties of the DBAF series were investigated by UV/vis- as well as fluorescence spectroscopy in oDCB (DBAF and DBAF-N2) or dichloromethane (mes-DBAF and mes-DBAF-N2) (Fig. 2 and Table 1). DBAF and DBAF-N2 were only soluble in oDCB after heating and ultrasonication. DBAF shows an intensive absorption maximum at λabs = 349 nm and additional low energy absorption maxima at λabs = 461, 491, 518 and 550 nm. A red emission can be detected by bare eye, which corresponds to a maximum at λem = 572 nm and a shoulder at λem ∼ 620 nm with a Stokes shift of = 699 cm−1 and a photoluminescence quantum yield of φ = 21%.
Cmpd | λ max , [nm] | λ onset [nm] | E gap,opt [eV] | λ em [nm] | Stokes [cm−1] | PLQY [%] | E IP,CV [eV] | E EA,CV [eV] | E gap,CV [eV] | E HOMO,DFT [eV] | E LUMO,DFT [eV] | E Diff,DFT [eV] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a Most-red-shifted absorption maximum. b DBAF and DBAF-N2 were measured in o-DCB at room temperature; mes-DBAF and mes-DBAF-N2 were measured in CH2Cl2 at room temperature. c Estimated from the corresponding λonset by Egap,opt = 1240/λonset. d Cyclic voltammograms (CV) of mes-DBAF and mes-DBAF-N2 in dichloromethane (c = 1 mM) using [Bu4N][PF6] (0.1 M) as electrolyte. CV scan speed 100 mV s−1. EIP,CV = −(EOx1/2 + 4.8 eV); EEA,CV = −(Ered1/2 + 4.8 eV). e Calculated at the u-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) level of theory. f Not determined due to solubility issues. | ||||||||||||
DBAF | 550 | 581 | 2.1 | 572 | 699 | 21 | —f | —f | —f | −5.0 | −2.4 | 2.6 |
DBAF-N2 | 555 | 582 | 2.1 | 577 | 687 | 5 | —f | —f | —f | −5.2 | −2.6 | 2.6 |
mes-DBAF | 561 | 589 | 2.1 | 588 | 819 | 20 | −5.3 | −3.0 | 2.3 | −4.9 | −2.4 | 2.6 |
mes-DBAF-N2 | 561 | 592 | 2.1 | 593 | 961 | 29 | −5.6 | −3.2 | 2.4 | −5.1 | −2.5 | 2.6 |
mes-DBAF shows similar spectroscopic properties as its non-mesitylated analogue with a high intensity absorption band at λabs = 350 nm (DBAF: 349 nm) and again poorly resolved maxima at λabs = 460, 493, 526 and 561 nm and a slightly red-shifted emission with λem = 588 nm (DBAF: 572 nm) leading to a larger Stokes shift of = 819 cm−1 (φ = 20%, Table 1).
DBAF-N2 shows two maxima at λabs = 379 and 399 nm and a less resolved pattern of overlapping adsorption maxima with a most red-shifted maximum at λabs = 519 nm with a shoulder at λabs = 555 nm. The corresponding emission maximum is found at λem = 577 nm with a shoulder at λem = 621 nm and a Stokes shift of = 687 cm−1 with φ = 5% (Table 1). Similarly, as for mes-DBAF and DBAF the spectral differences of mes-DBAF-N2 and DBAF-N2 are negligible (Fig. 2 and Table 1), indicating that the mesityl groups change the solubility without significantly influencing the optoelectronic properties of the molecular scaffolds.
As already mentioned, DBAF and DBAF-N2 are poorly soluble in organic solvents so that decent cyclovoltammograms could not be recorded. Therefore, only the mesitylated derivatives mes-DBAF and mes-DBAF-N2 have been investigated by cyclic as well as differential pulse voltammetry revealing an amphoteric redox behaviour in both cases (Fig. 3). Two reversible oxidations can be found for mes-DBAF at E1Ox = 0.52 V and E2Ox = 0.83 V as determined by DPV (CV: EOx,11/2 = 0.56 V und EOx,21/2 = 0.86 V) and one reversible reduction was detected at Ered = −1.76 V (CV: Ered1/2 = −1.80 V). For mes-DBAF-N2 the corresponding oxidation waves appear at approx. 0.2–0.3 V higher potentials with E1Ox = 0.76 V and E2Ox = 1.11 V (CV: EOx,11/2 = 0.76 V und EOx,21/2 = 1.13 V). The reduction is shifted by 0.14 V to higher potentials with Ered = −1.62 V (CV: Ered1/2 = 1.63 V) indicating the electrochemical stabilization of PAHs by nitrogen substitution.42–44 This is further displayed in the differences of the corresponding ionization potentials (mes-DBAF: IP = −5.32 eV; mes-DBAF-N2: IP = −5.56 eV) as well as electron affinities (mes-DBAF: EA = −3.04 eV; mes-DBAF-N2: EA = −3.18 eV) derived from this data. By UV/vis spectrsocopy it was demonstrated that the mesityl substituents, which are oriented orthogonal to the π backbone, do not significantly influence these electronically. Therefore, it is assumed that the redox behaviour of DBAF and DBAF-N2 are comparable to mes-DBAF and mes-DBAF-N2. By DFT calculations (u-B3LYP/6-31G(d,p); Fig. 4 and Table 1) a 0.19 eV lower HOMO energy of mes-DBAF-N2 (EHOMO = −5.12 eV) in comparison to mes-DBAF (EHOMO = −4.93 eV) is found as well as a 0.14 eV lower LUMO energy (mes-DBAF-N2: ELUMO = −2.52 eV; mes-DBAF: ELUMO = −2.38 eV), which corroborates with the trend found by CV.
Again, the mesityl substituents seem to only have a small influence to the energy levels with the HOMOs being lowered by only 0.09–0.1 eV and the LUMOs by only 0.04–0.06 eV for DBAF and DBAF-N2 in comparison to their mesitylated congeners (Fig. 4 and Table 1) and the distribution of frontier molecular orbital coefficients are nearly the same for all four compounds (Fig. 4).
By thermal crystallization from ortho-dichlorobenzene as well as by sublimation isomorphic single crystals of DBAF suitable for SCXRD were obtained. DBAF crystallizes in the monoclinic space group P21/n with Z = 2. The crystalline packing is dominated by slipped π-stacked molecular columns (Fig. 5b and c) with a spacing of dπ–π = 3.33 Å propagating along the crystallographic a-axis. Edge-to-face π stacking with dC–H⋯π = 2.70 Å and an angle of the π-systems of θ = 51.8° (Fig. 5c) leads to a herringbone like motif (Fig. 5d). Suitable crystals of DBAF-N2 have also been obtained by sublimation. DBAF-N2 also crystallized in the P21/n space group and again slipped π-stacked columns can be found, here with a slightly larger distance of dπ–π = 3.40 Å but with a larger overlap of two adjacent π systems (compare Fig. 5b and f). Similar edge-to-face π stacking is found but with a larger angle of θ = 73.1° and a larger distance between adjacent molecules (dC–H⋯π = 2.87 Å), leading to a herringbone type packing as well (Fig. 5g and h). Single-crystals of mes-DBAF were obtained by slow evaporation of a chloroform solution and crystallized in the monoclinic space group P21/n with Z = 2. This time with one enclathrated disordered molecule of chloroform per mes-DBAF (Fig. 5). Due to the almost perpendicular oriented (87.6°) mesityl groups, no direct π stacking of the DBAF central backbone is found (Fig. 5i). Instead, the crystalline packing is dominated by C–H⋯π-interactions of the para-methyl-group of a mesityl substituent with the central benzene ring of the DBAF backbone (dC–H⋯π = 2.34 Å) leading to a loose herringbone-like arrangement with chloroform molecules in its voids (Fig. 5j–l). Crystals of mes-DBAF-N2 were obtained by vapor phase diffusion of n-hexane into a saturated chloroform solution. mes-DBAF-N2 also crystallized in the monoclinic space group P21/n with Z = 2. In contrast to mes-DBAF, mes-DBAF-N2 shows linear columns of face-to-face π stacks along the crystallographic a-axis (Fig. 5n and p). Within these stacks two symmetrically independent molecules with unparallel π-planes and a shortest distance of dπ–π = 3.22 Å are found in a rare twisted offset45–47 with an angle of ∼32° between the central molecular axes to maximize orbital overlaps by avoiding the steric repulsion of the mesityl groups. The columns themselves interact with each other by dispersion interactions between the methyl groups of the mesityl substituents.
Charge transfer integrals (t) between the molecules as well as intrinsic charge carrier mobilities (hole and electron) were calculated via fragment based non-adiabatic molecular dynamic simulations (for a detailed description of the method see ESI‡).48,49 Only hole transport properties will be discussed (calculated electron transport properties can be found in the ESI‡), due to the fact, that the experimentally determined electron affinities of EA = −3.04 to −3.18 eV exclude a potential use in n-type semiconducting devices due to a mismatch with the work functions of commonly used electrode materials such as gold.50 The hole transfer integral of DBAF along the axis of the face-to-face stacking was calculated using the non-self-consistent density functional tight binding (DFTB) method with special parameter set51 to be t‖,h = 20 ± 14 meV (Fig. 5d). In the direction of the edge-to-face stacking only small transfer integrals were found (t⊥,h = 1 ± 3 meV). The corresponding theoretical hole mobility of μh = 0.31 cm2 V−1 s−1 calculated by the fewest switches surface hopping algorithm with implicit relaxation (FSSH-IR), where the reorganization energy is calculated by DFT with B3LYP functional and 6-31G(d,p) level of theory to be λh, B3LYP = 153 meV indicates the potential use of DBAF in such devices. In the case of DBAF-N2 (Fig. 5h), a higher electronic coupling with transfer integrals of t‖,h = 70 ± 24 meV was found. The corresponding hole mobilities of μh = 14.41 cm2 V−1 s−1 are based on a reorganization energy of λh, B3LYP = 167 meV. The mesitylated congeners mes-DBAF and mes-DBAF-N2 showed either no or only negligible theoretical mobilities and have thus been excluded for device fabrication (see ESI‡ for further details).
Organic p-channel TFTs of DBAF gave hole mobilities of 1 × 10−4 to 1 × 10−3 cm2 V−1 s−1 independent of the type of the substrate (silicon or flexible polyethylene naphthalate (PEN)) and the substrate temperature during the vacuum deposition of the semiconductor (60 or 80 °C) when using a pentadecafluoro-octadecylphosphonic acid self-assembled monolayer (F-SAM) as part of the gate dielectric.52
These mobilities significantly increased using an n-tetradecylphosphonic acid SAM (H-SAM) instead. In this case, mobilities of 0.08 up to 0.4 cm2 V−1 s−1 have been obtained, again independent of the type of substrate and the substrate temperature during the semiconductor deposition. The best TFT performance was obtained on a PEN substrate using a substrate temperature of 80 °C during the semiconductor deposition (for details see ESI‡), with a mobility of μh,exp = 0.4 cm2 V−1 s−1 (Fig. 6), which is in good agreement to the theoretical mobility discussed above (μh,theo = 0.31 cm2 V−1 s−1). Although DBAF-N2 showed even higher theoretical hole mobilities (μh,theo = 14.41 cm2 V−1 s−1, see discussion above), the mobilities obtained experimentally are much smaller, only 4 × 10−5 to 5 × 10−4 cm2 V−1 s−1, independent of the type of substrate, the type of SAM, and the substrate temperature during the semiconductor deposition. The calculated values represent the intrinsic mobility in the perfect crystalline structures of DBAF and DBAF-N2, where no grain boundaries or other defects are present. However, in thin-films, such defects exist, and the thin-film structures may deviate from the ideal single-crystal form. Consequently, the calculated mobilities provide a useful estimation of how closely the deposited thin-films approximate a perfect single crystal. This can be inferred from the similarity of their charge-transport properties. The significant difference between the experimental and theoretical mobilities suggests that the deposited DBAF-N2 structure deviates considerably from the perfect crystal structure.
To better understand the measured TFT characteristics (schematic device structure shown in Fig. 7a), grazing-incidence wide-angle X-ray scattering (GIWAXS) was employed. The critical angles (αc) of DBAF and DBAF-N2 are estimated at 0.17° and 0.18°, respectively.53 Therefore, the incident angle (αi) of the incoming X-ray was set at 0.3° (αi > αc) in order to probe microstructures of the deeper-lying organic/SAM/inorganic interface, rather than those from the topmost surface. Though the AFM and SEM investigations reveal the polycrystallinity of the thin-films with non-specific orientations, the small grain size (∼0.1–0.5 μm) makes the in-plane information difficult or impossible to be detected by GIWAXS. Instead, we obtain the strong out-of-plane signals and are thus able to analyze the interface configurations. Two sets of out-of-plane signals have been observed. As exemplified in Fig. 7c and d, the lower one at ∼21 Å stems from the self-assembled monolayer that is part of the gate dielectric, while the upper one at ∼10 Å belongs to the organic semiconductor thin-films. Specifically, for DBAF, the reflex at 9.99 Å is assigned to the (001) plane (10.5 Å calculated from the signal crystal data) and for DBAF-N2, the reflex at 9.75 Å to the (10) plane (9.77 Å calculated from the signal crystal data). Both molecules show an edge-on orientation and a layered structure. DBAF stays more tilted (43°–44°) than DBAF-N2 (77°–78°) to the substrate, which could slightly lower the HOMO level. Within one layer, both DBAF and DBAF-N2 molecules stack in lines. The small π–π distance (DBAF 3.3 Å and DBAF-N2 3.4 Å) of two adjacent molecules and a reasonable overlap of their electron clouds (∼1/3 for DBAF and ∼2/3 for DBAF-N2) favor the horizontal charge-carrier hopping along the stack-propagating direction (Fig. 7b). This agrees with the values of the calculated transfer integrals (for DBAFt‖,h = 20 ± 14 meV and for DBAF-N2t‖,h = 70 ± 24 meV). The main difference is found in the vertical perspective (parallel to the substrate surface normal) between the adjacent layers. DBAF shows an edge-to-face π–π-arrangement (t⊥,h = 1 ± 3 meV), whereas DBAF-N2 has an edge-to-edge arrangement, giving rise to a negligible overlap of the π-electron cloud of molecules stemming from different layers (Fig. 7i). Thus, the vertical charge-carrier transport in the DBAF-N2 thin-films is inefficient, leading to a larger contact resistance and thereby to a smaller effective charge-carrier mobility54 compared to the DBAF TFTs. Another explanation for the substantial difference in measured charge-carrier mobilities is that unlike DBAF, DBAF-N2 does not form a completely closed film on the substrate surface (as indicated by the AFM images in the ESI in Fig. S74‡), which is expected to greatly impede the lateral charge transport.
Footnotes |
† Dedicated to Prof. Dr. Frank Würthner on the occasion of his 60th birthday. |
‡ Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. CCDC 2353527–2353534. For ESI and crystallographic data in CIF or other electronic format see DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4qo01252f |
This journal is © the Partner Organisations 2024 |