4.1. Characterization of Dye Molecules
The ionization potential (IP) and electron affinity (EA) of the sensitizer describe the electronic energy barrier for creating holes and electrons, respectively. A lower IP should promote the hole-creating ability, whereas a higher EA should enhance the electron-accepting ability of the dye. Based on these two parameters, the chemical reactivity of the model dyes can be characterized by the electronic chemical potential (μ), chemical hardness (η), electrophilicity index (ω). The electronic chemical potential is the negative of the electronegativity, which quantifies the ability of the system to attract and retain electrons. The chemical hardness describes the resistance of a dyes to a change its electronic state, e.g., by means of intra-molecular charge transfer (ICT) in a multicomponent system as the present D-π- π-A.
The electrophilicity index ω encompasses both, the propensity of the electrophile to acquire additional electronic charge (μ) and the resistance of the system to exchange electronic charge with the environment (η), simultaneously. Thus, electrophilicity represents the stabilization energy of the dyes upon acquiring additional charge. Consequently, dyes suitable for DSSCs should have low chemical hardness and high chemical potential to increase charge separation.
Following Parr and Yang, electronic chemical potential, chemical hardness, electrophilicity index are commonly expressed by the following equations [
32]
Further we define the electron-accepting (
ω+) and electron-donating (
ω-) power
The parameters ω– and ω+ are quantifying the ability of these dyes to withdraw or gain electron charges, for good performance large values are desirable.
The overall power conversion efficiency (PCE) of DSSCs is given by the photocurrent density measured at short-circuit (
Jsc), the open-circuit photo-voltage (
Voc), the fill factor of the cell (FF), and the intensity of the incident light (
Pin) as summarized in the following expression [
25]:
where
Jsc can be determined using the following equation [
29,
30,
33]:
Here LHE is the light-harvesting efficiency at maximum wavelength,
Фinject is the electron injection efficiency and
ηcollect is the charge collection efficiency. In systems where the only difference is in the sensitizer,
ηcollect is assumed constant. According to equation (7), to obtain a high
Jsc, LHE and
Фinject should be as large as possible. The LHE can be expressed by the following equation:
where
f is the oscillator strength of dye related to the maximum absorption wavelength λ
max.
The open-circuit-voltage
Voc in equation (6) is related to electron injection from the excited dye to the conduction band of the semiconductor and determined by the following equation (neglecting occupation effects as well as conduction band shift in the semiconductor):
where
ELUMO is LUMO energy of the dye and
is the conduction band energy of the semiconductor (here TiO
2). It is difficult to accurately determine
because it is highly sensitive to operating conditions such as the pH of the solution. In the present study we have used
= -4.0 eV, which is the experimental value corresponding to conditions where the semiconductor is in contact with aqueous redox electrolytes of fixed pH 7.0 [
25].
Фinject is closely related to the thermodynamic driving force Δ
Ginject of electron injection from the excited states of dye to the conduction band of TiO
2 according to the following relation [
29]
Here
is the oxidation potential of the excited dye at the ground state geometry (neglecting vibrational relaxation upon excitation) following from
with
being the oxidation potential energy of the dye in the ground-state, while
is the vertical electronic excitation energy, corresponding to
λmax. In order to obtain more reliable results for the oxidation potential we have used the
method instead of Koopmans theorem, that is,
with GS referring to the ground state and vibrational relaxation effects have been neglected. The dye regeneration energy (
) can be calculated by the equation [
18]:
is the ground state oxidation potential of the triiodide/iodide redox couple electrolyte redox potential (-4.80 eV) [
18].
4.2. Computational Chemistry
Density functional theory (DFT) calculations were performed for the determination of optimized structures of the molecules
D0-
D5 at the CAM-B3LYP/6-31G(d) level of theory [
34] using the Gaussian09 program [
35]. In fact, these molecules show multiple conformations and we have taken the one previously reported for the diphenylamine donor [
20]. Optimization was followed by frequency calculations to confirm the minimum structure on the potential energy surface. Linear response time-dependent TDDFT computations have been carried out to calculate the electronic absorption spectra for the 25 lowest singlet vertical excitations. The solvent environment (tetrahydrofuran) was treated implicitly using the self-consistent reaction field-polarizable continuum model [
36]. In passing we note that we have also calculated the absorption spectrum using the B3LYP functional. B3LYP predicts the lowest and strongest transition for
D0 at 758 nm which is at variance with the experiment and with the CAM-B3LYP results reported in
Section 2.3. In passing we note that, in view of results reported in Ref. [
20] (although with a different spacer), we have repeated the calculation of the absorption spectrum of
D5 using a 6-311+G(d) basis set. Here we observed no noticeable change as far as the low energy absorption peak is concerned. The HOMO, LUMO energies, HOMO-LUMO energy gap, and other parameters defined in
Section 4.1 were calculated at the optimized geometry.