Singlet-Fission Sensitizers for 

Ultra-High Efficiency Excitonic 

Solar Cells 

15 August 2005 – 14 October 2008 

J. Michl 

University of Colorado 

Boulder, Colorado 

Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-520-44685 

December 2008 
Singlet-Fission Sensitizers for 

Ultra-High Efficiency Excitonic 

Solar Cells 

15 August 2005 – 14 October 2008 

J. Michl 

University of Colorado 

Boulder, Colorado 

NREL Technical Monitor: Lori Greene/Kaitlyn VanSant 

Prepared under Subcontract No. XAT-5-33636-01 

Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-520-44685 

December 2008 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308
This publication was reproduced from the best available copy 

Submitted by the subcontractor and received no editorial review at NREL

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Table of Contents 

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2 

General Considerations for a Singlet Fission Sensitizer ........................................................................... 2 

Theoretical Requirements for the Molecular Structure of a Singlet Fission Sensitizer ............................ 5 

Results for a Model Chromophore 1 ......................................................................................................... 7 

Calculations of Coupling in Covalent Dimers ......................................................................................... 15 

Synthesis of Covalent Dimers .................................................................................................................. 17 

Solution Photophysics of the Weakly Coupled Dimers 2 and 3 .............................................................. 19 

Solution Photophysics of the Strongly Coupled Dimer 4 ........................................................................ 24 

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 25 

References ................................................................................................................................................ 26 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. A Symbolic Representation of MO Occupancies in the Initial Excited Singlet State ........... 5 

Figure 2. Molecular Structures 1 – 4 ..................................................................................................... 7 

Figure 3. The Crystal Structure of 1, Oxygen is Shown in Red ............................................................ 8 

Figure 4. T1 and S1 States of 1 from EELS and UV Absorption Spectroscopy .................................. 10 

Figure 5. Magnetic Circular Dichroism of 1 and Its Polarized Absorption in Stretched 

 Polyethylene ......................................................................................................................... 10 

Figure 6. Anisotropy of Fluorescence and Fluorescence Excitation of 1............................................ 12 

Figure 7. Absorption Spectra of the S1 and T1 States of 1 and Results of CASPT2 Calculations ..... 12 

Figure 8. Absorption Spectra of the Radical Cation (blue) and Radical Anion (red) of 1 from Pulse 

Radiolysis (courtesy of J. Miller, Brookhaven National Laboratory) .................................. 13 

Figure 9. Structures of Dimers of 1 for which DFT Computations have been Performed .................. 17 

Figure 10. Synthetic Route to 2 ............................................................................................................. 18 

Figure 11. Synthetic Route to 3 ............................................................................................................. 18 

Figure 12. Synthetic Route to 4 ............................................................................................................. 19 

Figure 13. Absorption and Fluorescence Spectra of the Ground State of 1, 2, 3 and 4 in 

 Acetonitrile ........................................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 14. Triplet-Ttriplet Absorption of 1, 2, and 3 Sensitized with Anthracene ............................... 20 

Figure 15. Transient Absorption at 575 nm of 1 and 2 Obtained Upon Direct Excitation at 400 nm 

 in DMSO .............................................................................................................................. 23 

Figure 16. Absorption Spectra of the S1, S*

, and T1 of 2 ....................................................................... 23 

Figure 17. Reaction Scheme for the Photophysics of 2 and 3 in DMSO .............................................. 24 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Calculated Geometrics of 1 – 4 in Various Electronic States .................................................... 8 

Table 2. Excited State Energies for 1,3-Diphenylisobenzofuran (1) in eV ............................................ 14 

Table 3. Photophysical Characteristics of 1 in Solution ......................................................................... 14 

Table 4. Electronic Matrix Elements and Free Energies for Various Covalent Dimers of 1 ................. 16 

Table 5. Photophysical Characteristics of 2 and 3.................................................................................. 21 

Table 6. Multiexponential Fluorescence Decay of 2 and 3 in Solution ................................................. 21 

Table 7. Rate Constantsa

 for the Photophysics of 2 and 3 in DMSO Solution ....................................... 24 

Table 8. Photophysical Characteristics of 4 in Solution ......................................................................... 25 

 iii
Abstract

 Sensitizer dyes capable of producing two triplet excited states from a singlet excited state 

produced by the absorption of a single photon would allow an increase of the efficiency of 

photovoltaic cells by up to a factor of 1.5, provided that each triplet injects an electron into a 

semiconductor such as TiO2. Although singlet fission in certain crystals and polymers was 

reported long ago, little is known about its efficiency in dyes suitable for use as sensitizers of 

photoinduced charge separation on semiconductors surfaces. In the present project, we have 

accomplished the following, in collaboration with Prof. A. J. Nozik at NREL and with a 

subcontractor, Prof. M. A. Ratner at Northwestern University: 

 (a) A theoretical analysis and a series of computations established that biradicaloids and 

alternant hydrocarbons are likely parent structures for meeting the exothermicity requirement 

E(T2), E(S1) > 2E(T1) for the excitation energies of the lowest excited singlet (S1) and the two 

triplet (T1, T2) states. 

 (b) 1,3-Diphenylisobenzofuran (1) has been chosen as a model compound of the 

biradicaloid type, and a complete spectroscopic and photophysical characterization has been 

obtained. In the neat solid state, 1 forms triplets by singlet fission in a yield of at least 10% and 

possibly as high as 50%. This appears to be the first compound displaying singlet fission by 

design. 

 (c) We have performed calculations of the degree of coupling to be anticipated in a large 

number of possible covalent dimers and pointed out the existence of contradictory requirements: 

the two halves of the dimer need to be coupled strongly enough for fast singlet fission kinetics 

and weakly enough for favorable singlet fission exothermicity (the coupling should not stabilize 

the excited singlet excessively to keep its excitation energy above twice the triplet excitation 

energy, as they are in the monomer). 

 (d) We have begun to explore ways in which the two conditions can be met 

simultaneously. We have synthesized dimers of 1 in which these chromophores were attached 

covalently to each other in three different ways differing in the nature of coupling of the two 

halves. 

 (e) Upon examining their photophysics we found that in non-polar solvents the two more 

weakly coupled dimers 2 and 3 have singlet excitation energies very similar to those of the 

monomer 1 but produce no triplets and only fluoresce. The rate of singlet fission is clearly too 

slow to be competitive, and we conclude that the coupling of the two halves is too weak. In polar 

solvents both form triplets in yields of up to 9% by converting into a intramolecular chargetransfer intermediate, which then undergoes intersystem crossing, but this process is not useful 

for our purposes. 

 (f) The third dimer (4) is much more strongly coupled and its excited singlet is clearly 

stabilized significantly. This dimer provides an illustration of the above mentioned 

contradiction: the coupling is strong enough to secure fast singlet fission, but also strong enough 

to make singlet fission endoergic. Singlet fission is observed, but it does not proceed from the 

relaxed excited singlet state and proceeds only upon excitation to a higher state. Then, it 

proceeds fast enough to be somewhat competitive with internal conversion and vibrational 

deactivation, but because of this competition it affords a triplet yield of only ~3%. Details of the 

process, which appears to yield the first observed quintet state of an aromatic molecule, are 

currently under investigation funded by a different contract. 

 1
 (g) In summary, we have produced the first designed crystalline material for singlet 

fission, and we have made the first determinations of the coupling strength in a covalent dimer 

that is required for efficient singlet fission. We have suggested paths for overcoming a problem 

that has been identified and have already started to develop them in a follow-up project. 

Introduction

 This project has been done with a subcontractor, Prof. Mark A. Ratner of the 

Northwestern University. The work has been performed in close collaboration with the research 

group of Prof. Arthur J. Nozik at National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In particular, timeresolved spectroscopy and steady-illumination triplet spectral measurements on the samples 

prepared in our laboratory were done at NREL. 

 Single-stage photovoltaic cells can be inexpensive but suffer from low efficiency, in part 

because they only utilize that part of the energy of an absorbed photon that corresponds to a 

semiconductor band gap or to the lowest energy transition of a dye sensitizer, and convert the rest 

to heat. Singlet fission (SF) is being considered as one possibility for improving the situation.1

 

In this process, a singlet excitation S1 of a molecular chromophore is converted into triplet 

excitations T1 on two molecular chromophores, both of which can then in principle generate 

electron-hole pairs. The SF process is the inverse of the long known and much studied triplettriplet annihilation. It has been recognized for decades from studies of more or less randomly 

chosen organic molecular crystals, and also of certain polymers and oligomers, but it has not 

been widely studied or put to practical use. The literature on SF has been recently collected. 

 A quantitative analysis of the possible contribution of SF to excitonic solar cell 

efficiency2 has shown that an improvement by as much as a factor of 1.5 is possible theoretically 

in a cell in which light first passes through a layer of semiconductor containing an adsorbed SF 

sensitizer with an absorption edge at ~2 eV and then through a layer of the same semiconductor 

carrying an ordinary sensitizer with an absorption edge at ~1 eV. It is assumed that the photons 

absorbed in the SF layer each generate two electron-hole pairs, and those absorbed in the second 

layer each generate a single electron-hole pair. For suitable sensitizer choices, all of the electrons 

generated are at the same potential and can be injected into the conduction band of the 

semiconductor and then transported to an electrode. All of the holes generated are at the same 

potential and can be transported to the other electrode. For efficient operation of the SF 

sensitizer one has to make sure that electron injection from the originally excited singlet state S1

is slower than SF, while electron injection from the triplet state T1 is faster than the decay of the 

T1 into the ground state S0. This appears feasible, given the huge difference between the usual 

lifetimes of the S1 and T1 states. At the same time, it needs to be recognized that the long T1

lifetime provides opportunities for triplet-triplet recombination, which would defeat the purpose 

of the whole exercise. 

General Considerations for a Singlet Fission Sensitizer

 The adsorbed sensitizer could be in the form of nanocrystals or another type of noncovalent aggregate, or it could be in the form of a covalent polymer, oligomer, or dimer. There 

are advantages and disadvantages to all these choices. Most of the instances of rapid and 

presumably efficient SF that have been reported occurred in crystals, and they might be a natural 

choice. The crystallites could be prepared separately and then applied to the semiconductor 

surface, as long as they are small enough to penetrate into the pores in the semiconductor 

 2
particles. They could also be grown directly on the surface from solution. The lifetime of the 

triplet exciton is limited and if the time required for it to diffuse to the crystal wall and to be 

injected into the semiconductor is excessive, the injection efficiency will be low. Similarly, the 

hole that results from the injection needs to diffuse to the opposite surface of the crystal, where it 

is to be transferred to a shuttle such as the iodide anion, or to a hole-conducting polymer. This 

diffusion also needs to be fast in order to minimize electron-hole recombination. Control of 

crystal or aggregate size therefore becomes critical. 

 Covalent polymers have been observed to undergo SF, and their structure and size might 

be easier to control. Also the adsorption process, which would occur from solution, seems 

simpler. The observation of SF in carotenoids, which can be viewed as covalent oligomers of 

ethylene, capable of decoupling into two smaller oligomers by twisting about an internal bond, 

suggests that other covalent oligomers might be suitable as well. In the extreme of smallness, 

one could use a covalent dimer. This would appear to be the simplest approach, but the one case 

reported in the literature is discouraging. Although crystalline tetracene seems to undergo SF 

quite efficiently, a covalent dimer of tetracene exhibited only an extremely low yield of SF.3

 The next issue to address is the nature of the coupling between the individual 

chromophores that is optimal for the SF process to proceed fast. Very little if anything was 

known about this from theory. We thought at first that the coupling apparently does not have to 

be very strong, since SF proceeds well in crystals, where the chromophores merely touch, and our 

initial guess was that almost any degree of coupling will be sufficient. As we shall see below, 

this does not appear to be the case, and we now believe that the coupling actually needs to be 

quite strong when the initial excitation is localized. This complicates matters, since strong 

coupling will also reduce the energy of the relaxed singlet state and this will need to be taken into 

account in the design of the optimal chromophore. 

 In the simplest case only one potential energy surface describing the lowest excited 

singlet state of the chromophore pair needs to be invoked, although other states necessarily lie 

nearby. In a vibrationally relaxed system, SF is represented by a transition from an initially 

populated excimer-like (S0S1, S1S0) minimum in the lowest singlet surface to a minimum best 

described as doubly excited in the same surface (T1,T1; two triplets coupled into an overall 

singlet), usually over a barrier separating the two minima. This final minimum is located at a 

geometry in which both halves of the system are at equilibrium T1 geometries, and their 

interaction is minimized. For efficient SF, it needs to lie below or at most only a little above the 

starting “excimer-like” minimum. It is likely that an energy barrier separating the two minima, 

or two barriers if a third intermediate minimum intervenes as discussed below, will be minimized 

when the difference in the S1 and T1 equilibrium geometries is small, and this may be one of the 

criteria for the selection of SF chromophores. 

 The states and electron configurations involved in the description of SF in a dimer are 

already familiar from earlier analyses of the photophysics of excimers and of photochemical 

dimerization, since the “double triplet” state correlates with the ground state of the photodimer,4

but they may be worth a closer description. In addition to providing the starting minimum in the 

lowest excited singlet surface, the S0S1, S1S0 combination also gives rise to another excimer-like 

state, expected to lie only a little above the lowest excited singlet surface at the initial geometry, 

and both excimer-like states may have smaller or larger contributions from charge-transfer 

configurations in which an electron is transferred from one chromophore to the other (I+

I

-

, II

+

). 

We first ignore these complications and only consider the lowest singlet surface. 

 3
 At the geometry of the final “double triplet” singlet state, composed of two only weakly 

interacting triplet excited halves, the minimum in the lowest singlet surface is nearly degenerate 

with two additional states. One is a triplet and the other a quintet, and they result from the other 

possible couplings of local triplet excitations. After transition from the “excimer-like” into the 

“double triplet” minimum in the excited singlet state, the system can undergo rapid dephasing of 

the two only weakly coupled local triplet excitations from an initial overall singlet into an overall 

triplet or quintet, induced by minor perturbations such as the magnetic fields of protons or other 

magnetic nuclei present in the system. 

 Two cases of initial singlet excitation need to be distinguished. If this excitation is 

localized, as would usually be the case in covalent molecular dimers, SF starts from one of two 

isoenergetic minima that correspond to a combination of one chromophore in its S1 state and the 

other chromophore in its S0 state, both at their relaxed equilibrium geometries. These minima 

are usually separated by a very low energy barrier and both are normally populated in a rapid 

equilibrium, which corresponds to an electronic excitation transfer between the two halves of the 

molecule, accompanied by appropriate adjustment in nuclear positions. If the initial singlet 

excitation is delocalized, as would often be the case in molecular crystals where the singlet 

exciton can extend over many molecules (but not if it is trapped on a pair of molecules), there is 

no barrier between the S0S1 and S1S0 excitations and the lowest excited singlet surface contains 

only one “excimer-like” minimum. Which of the two situations prevails depends on the strength 

of the coupling between the two halves of the chromophore pair and on the site distortion energy, 

related to the difference in the equilibrium geometries in the S0 and the S1 states. 

 The difference between a localized and a delocalized starting singlet excitation may 

appear unimportant, as after all, the latter is just a limiting case of the former. However, this 

difference may actually have important consequences for SF. If we assume that the primary 

effect of the geometry change upon travel from the initial minimum to the final minimum on the 

lowest singlet surface is to act as a one-electron perturbation, and consider that the initial and the 

final electronic configurations differ in the occupancies of two spinorbitals as illustrated 

schematically in Figure 1, it is apparent that the perturbation operator needs to be applied twice 

and that there is a virtual or real intermediate state, represented by a configuration in which only 

one electron has been moved (only one choice is shown in Figure 1). Now, if the excitation is 

delocalized, the MOs whose energies and occupancies are shown in Figure 1 are delocalized 

equally over both halves of the system, and the creation of the intermediate configuration 

involves no charge separation. In contrast, if the excitation is localized, the MOs whose energies 

and occupancies are shown in Figure 1 are localized on one or the other half of the system, and 

the intermediate configuration involves an electron transfer from one to the other half (I+

I

-

, II

+

). 

It is strongly dipolar and its energy will be greatly affected by the polarity of the medium. One 

might therefore suspect that SF in delocalized systems will proceed well in non-polar 

environments, but that SF in localized systems will be promoted by polar environments, which 

will lower the energy of the virtual or real intermediate charge-transfer state. If the intermediate 

state is stabilized sufficiently to become real and represent a third minimum on the lowest 

excited singlet state surface, located between the initially considered starting (“excimer-like”) 

and final (“double triplet”) minima, SF becomes a two-step process. The intervention of a real 

intermediate is not likely to be a welcome phenomenon, since it will most likely offer 

opportunities for various deactivation channels, such as intersystem crossing from the singlet to 

 4
the triplet state, or back electron transfer to form the S1 or S0 state. These processes would result 

in a decreased triplet yield. 

Figure 1. A symbolic representation of MO 

occupancies in the initial excited singlet state 

(left) and the final singlet state (right) in SF. 

Occupancy in one of the possible intermediate 

singlets is shown in the center. 

Theoretical Requirements for the Molecular Structure of a Singlet Fission 

Sensitizer

 We consider next the molecular structure of the SF chromophore that underlies the 

sensitizer, whether it is used in the form of a dimer, oligomer, polymer, aggregate, or crystal, and 

the results have been published. Because of the requirement of large absorption cross-sections, 

π-electron systems are most likely candidates and we shall focus on them. The compounds that 

have been observed to produce SF so far have been extremely limited structurally and have 

essentially all been alternant hydrocarbons, i.e. π-electron systems without odd-membered rings. 

In almost all of them, the excitation energy from S0 into S1 is less than twice the excitation 

energy from S0 into T1, and as a result SF is endothermic and only possible when the missing 

amount of energy is delivered by the thermal bath, or by an initial excitation into a higher 

vibrational level of S1 or into a higher excited singlet state Sn. This is a clear disadvantage. The 

need for thermal excitation will slow down SF, and vibrational deactivation will compete with 

SF from an initially vibrationally hot sensitizer. Also, the undesirable T1 - T1 annihilation to 

produce S1 and S0 will be exothermic and will occur at a rate that is close to diffusion-controlled. 

 A search for suitable SF chromophores should therefore probably impose the level energy 

condition E(S1) > 2 E(T1) as one of the requirements. This highly unusual ordering immediately 

excludes most standard dyes. To make matters worse, it does not in itself guarantee that triplet - 

triplet annihilation will be slow. Although the T1 + T1 → S1 + S0 channel will be suppressed, the 

T1 + T1 → T2 + S0 channel may still be open, and in order to close it, the condition E(T2) > 2 

E(T1) should be imposed as well. We probably do not need to worry about the third obvious 

channel, T1 + T1 → Q1 + S0, since the energy of the lowest quintet state Q1 is likely to be always 

too high. The channels T1 + T1 → S0 + S0 and T1 + T1 → T1 + S0 are likely to be too exothermic 

to compete and will not cause trouble. 

 There are two obvious classes of candidate structures, which are not mutually exclusive. 

One of these are systems derived from molecules with an ordinary closed shell ground state, and 

the other, systems derived from molecules with an open shell ground state (biradicals). Once a 

suitable fundamental structure is identified, it will undoubtedly be necessary to modify it by the 

 5
attachment of heteroatoms or substitutents that will fine-tune the absorption wavelength and 

assure other desired properties. 

 Among π-electron parent systems with closed shell ground states, alternant hydrocarbons 

are the most likely to have a large S1-T1 splitting, and therefore to satisfy the condition E(S1) > 2 

E(T1). This follows from the alternant pairing theorem long known from simple molecular 

orbital (MO) theory of π-electron systems,5,6

 according to which the highest occupied MO 

(HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied MO (LUMO) have large absolute amplitudes on the same 

set of atoms. As a result, the exchange integral KHOMO,LUMO between these two MOs is large, and 

so is the S1-T1 splitting, which is approximately equal to 2KHOMO,LUMO. 

 In order to actually satisfy the condition E(S1) > 2 E(T1), the alternant hydrocarbon has to 

have a small S0 to S1 excitation energy. Since a singlet excitation energy of only about 2 eV is 

desired in any event, this requirement is not bothersome, but it means that the hydrocarbon has to 

be quite large. For instance, in the polyacene series, which has been investigated most 

thoroughly, the first hydrocarbon that meets the requirement is pentacene. Tetracene is not quite 

large enough, and the energy of its S1 lies a little above twice the energy of T1. Fortunately, the 

misfit is small and the difference can be made up easily by thermal excitation at room 

temperature. Nonalternant systems, such as azulene, can have similarly low S0 to S1 excitation 

energies already at much smaller molecular size. However, their HOMO and LUMO are 

typically predominantly located on different sets of atoms. This results in a small KHOMO,LUMO

value and a small S1-T1 gap, which does not permit them to meet the condition E(S1) > 2 E(T1). 

 There seems to be no particular reason to expect T2 to lie at or above S1 in large alternant 

hydrocarbons, but in pentacene it does. This chromophore therefore looks promising for a 

possible use in SF, and it is unfortunate that it is highly reactive and difficult to handle. In this 

regard, the rylenes, the higher analogues of perylene, may offer advantages. 

 The other class of likely π-electron hydrocarbon parent structures are those with an openshell ground state, biradicals. In these, T1 may actually be the ground state, and in any event, it is 

not far in energy from the lowest singlet S0. Two additional singlet states result from intra-shell 

excitation. The upper one, S2, is usually significantly above S0 and T1 in energy. The S1 state is 

degenerate with S0 in axial biradicals, such as charged 4N-electron annulenes, and nearly 

degenerate with S2 in pair biradicals, such as uncharged 4N-electron annulenes.7

 Inter-shell 

excitation is needed to produce additional states, including T2, and usually requires higher 

energies. As a result, in the parent π-electron biradicals, both conditions E(S1), E(T2) > 2 E(T1) 

are generally satisfied effortlessly. However, the S0 to T1 excitation energy is usually far too low, 

and possibly even negative, and the compounds are much too reactive to be useful. Both of these 

detrimental characteristics are removed simultaneously when the parent biradical is modified by 

a polar or a covalent perturbation8 to produce a biradicaloid. Such perturbations stabilize the S0

state relative to the T1 state and give the former a more or less ordinary closed shell structure, 

often endowed with fairly normal chemical stability. For instance, the parent antiaromatic 

dication biradical C6H6

2+ can be formally converted into quinone, C6H4O2, by the attachment of 

two phenolate oxygen substituents -O-. One can hope that when the extent of the perturbation is 

just right, the S0 - T1 energy gap will be only a little smaller than the T1 - S1 energy gap, T2 will 

lie above S1, and the compound will be perfectly stable. 

 In addition to the conditions E(S1), E(T2) > 2 E(T1), the requirement that intersystem 

crossing (ISC) from S1 to T1 be negligibly slow, and possibly the requirement that the 

equilibrium S1 and T1 geometries be as close as possible, the SF chromophore needs to meet the 

 6
same series of criteria as ordinary sensitizers. The redox properties have to be matched to the 

semiconductor and the shuttle used, the electron injection kinetics from T1 have to be fast and 

back electron transfer insignificant, the material needs to adhere well to the semiconductor, its 

photostability needs to be outstanding, etc. We shall be concerned with these matters only if it 

turns out that an SF sensitizer with a T1 quantum yield close to 200% can actually be produced. 

 We then performed the next logical step in the search for a suitable SF sensitizer, a series 

of calculations for a many candidate chromophore structures, and found which ones satisfy the 

conditions E(S1), E(T2) > 2 E(T1). We used a semiempirical method that ordinarily provides an 

accuracy of about 0.2 - 0.3 eV. We have selected a few chromophores that appeared promising 

for proof of principle studies and verified that their energy levels behave as calculated. 

Results for a Model Chromophore 1

 We have selected one of these chromophores, 1,3-diphenylisobenzofuran (structure 1 in 

Figure 2), for a detailed study.9 The chromophore 1 can be formally derived from a biradical in 

which two CH2 groups are attached in the ortho positions of a benzene ring, and twisted by 90 ̊

out of conjugation with its π system. This biradical is then converted into a biradicaloid by 

twisting the CH2 groups into conjugation to make a planar π-electron system. The resulting 

molecule, o-quinodimethane,10 is still extremely reactive. It is stabilized further by formation of 

a five-membered heterocyclic ring with oxygen and addition of two phenyl substituents to yield 

1, a stable commercially available compound, albeit sensitive to oxygen under irradiation and 

therefore ultimately impractical. 

 We have obtained the single-crystal X-ray structure of 1 (Figure 3) and found that bond 

lengths and angles agree well with calculations. A comparison of results calculated for various 

electronic states of the monomer 1 as well as the various dimers 2 - 4, using DFT procedures, is 

given in Table 1. There is nothing surprising about the molecular structure of the ground state of 

1. The molecules are packed in parallel stacks that appear quite favorable for providing a weak 

coupling between neighbors. In accordance with this notion, the absorption spectrum of the 

polycrystalline layer is ~20 nm red shifted relative to the solution spectrum. The two computed 

conformers have virtually identical energies and differ by the sense of the angle of rotation of the 

phenyl substituents out of the heterocyclic plane; one has C2 and the other has Cs symmetry. 

Only the former is observed in the crystal, but both are undoubtedly present in solutions. Their 

spectral properties are calculated to be nearly identical. 

Figure 2. Molecular structures 1 - 4. 

 7
Figure 3. The crystal structure of 1. Oxygen is shown in red. 

 In the singlet and triplet excited states, the phenyl substituents are essentially coplanar 

with the heterocyclic ring, and bond lengths in the heterocycle alternate much less. The results 

given in Table 1 for S1 are only preliminary and unreliable because of convergence difficulties. 

Table 1. Calculated Geometries of 1 - 4 in Various Electronic States (TD-DFT, B3LYP/6-

31G*, bond lengths, Å; angles; degrees) 

1(S0) 1(S1) 1(T1) 2(S0) 2(S1)

v 2(T1) 2(Q1) 3(S0) 3(S1)v 3(T1) 3(Q1) 4(S0) 4(S1) 4(T1) 4(Q1) 

ΔEw,x 0.00 61.79 33.07 0.00 32.82 65.67 0.00 32.77 65.48 0.00 68.35 31.68 66.22 

a y 1.456 1.429 1.423 1.456 1.423 1.423 1.456 1.456 1.423 1.456 1.442 1.455 1.423 

b 1.399 1.423 1.444 1.399 1.444 1.444 1.399 1.399 1.444 1.399 1.411 1.400 1.444 

c 1.428 1.412 1.399 1.428 1.399 1.399 1.428 1.428 1.399 1.428 1.421 1.427 1.399 

d 1.374 1.411 1.411 1.374 1.411 1.411 1.374 1.374 1.411 1.374 1.385 1.375 1.412 

e 1.432 1.396 1.390 1.432 1.391 1.391 1.432 1.432 1.391 1.432 1.417 1.431 1.391 

f 1.374 1.411 1.411 1.374 1.411 1.411 1.374 1.374 1.411 1.375 1.389 1.375 1.411 

g 1.428 1.412 1.399 1.428 1.399 1.399 1.428 1.428 1.399 1.427 1.415 1.426 1.399 

h 1.399 1.424 1.444 1.399 1.444 1.444 1.399 1.399 1.444 1.401 1.421 1.403 1.442 

i 1.358 1.380 1.386 1.358 1.387 1.387 1.358 1.358 1.387 1.359 1.369 1.360 1.385 

j 1.358 1.380 1.386 1.359 1.386 1.386 1.359 1.359 1.385 1.358 1.365 1.358 1.387 

k 1.452 1.443 1.436 1.452 1.436 1.436 1.452 1.452 1.436 1.451 1.446 1.451 1.437 

l 1.456 1.429 1.423 1.455 1.421 1.421 1.456 1.456 1.422 1.453 1.426 1.449 1.423 

aʹ 1.456 1.456 1.423 1.456 1.423 1.423 1.456 1.442 1.425 1.423 

bʹ 1.399 1.399 1.444 1.399 1.444 1.444 1.399 1.411 1.442 1.444 

 8
 9

1(S0) 1(S1) 1(T1) 2(S0) 2(S1)

v 2(T1) 2(Q1) 3(S0) 3(S1)v 3(T1) 3(Q1) 4(S0) 4(S1) 4(T1) 4(Q1) 

cʹ 1.428 1.428 1.399 1.428 1.399 1.399 1.428 1.421 1.401 1.399 

dʹ 1.374 1.374 1.411 1.374 1.411 1.411 1.374 1.385 1.408 1.412 

eʹ 1.432 1.432 1.391 1.432 1.391 1.391 1.432 1.417 1.393 1.391 

fʹ 1.374 1.374 1.411 1.374 1.411 1.411 1.375 1.388 1.409 1.411 

gʹ 1.428 1.428 1.399 1.428 1.399 1.399 1.427 1.415 1.398 1.399 

hʹ 1.399 1.399 1.444 1.399 1.444 1.444 1.400 1.421 1.446 1.442 

iʹ 1.358 1.358 1.387 1.358 1.387 1.387 1.359 1.369 1.385 1.385 

jʹ 1.358 1.359 1.386 1.359 1.385 1.385 1.358 1.365 1.384 1.387 

kʹ 1.452 1.452 1.436 1.452 1.436 1.436 1.451 1.446 1.435 1.437 

lʹ 1.455 1.455 1.421 1.456 1.421 1.422 1.453 1.427 1.412 1.423 

Az 18.0 5.1 2.1 -17.9 -3.7 -2.7 -17.5 -18.4 -3.9 -18.6 -9.8 -18.1 -3.9 

B 18.0 5.1 2.1 -19.2 -4.9 -1.9 17.8 18.9 5.1 -16.4 -4.6 -14.3 -6.0 

C -56.2 -54.6 -54.9 -89.3 -88.7 -88.9 31.1 14.9 23.6 30.3 

D -19.2 -19.2 -2.9 17.8 5.1 5.1 -16.4 -5.1 -4.2 -5.9 

E -17.9 -17.8 -0.6 -17.5 -4.6 -3.9 -18.6 -10.1 -5.2 -3.9 

 v Calculations are still in course. w The absolute energies for the ground state of 1, 2, 3, and 4 are -844.653483, -

1727.374540, -1845.151430, and -1688.123380 respectively. x Relative energies are kcal/mol. y Bond lengths are 

in Å . z

 Dihedral angles are in degrees.

Table 1 (cont.) 

Cmpd. ΔE (kcal/mol) A B C D E 

1(S0)

a 0.00 18.0 18.0 

1(S1) 61.79 5.1 5.1 

1(T1) 33.07 2.1 2.1 

2(S0)

a 0.00 -17.9 -19.2 -56.2 -19.2 -17.9 

2(S1)

b

2(T1) 32.82 -3.7 -4.9 -54.6 -19.2 -17.8 

2(Q1) 65.67 -2.7 -1.9 -54.9 -2.9 -0.6 

3(S0)

a 0.00 -17.5 17.8 -89.3 17.8 -17.5 

3(S1)

b
Cmpd. ΔE (kcal/mol) A B C D E 

3(T1) 32.77 -18.4 18.9 -88.7 5.1 -4.6 

3(Q1) 65.48 -3.9 5.1 -88.9 5.1 -3.9 

4(S0)

a 0.00 -18.6 -16.4 31.1 -16.4 -18.6 

4(S1)

b

4(T1) 31.68 -18.1 -14.3 23.6 -4.2 -5.2 

4(S0) 66.22 -3.9 -6.0 30.3 -5.9 -3.9 

____________________________________________________________________________

__ 

a

 The total ground state energies of 1, 2, 3, and 4 are -844.653483, -1727.374540, -

1845.151430, and -1688.123380 a. u., respectively. 

b

 Calculations are still in course.

 We have performed a thorough experimental characterization of the electronic and 

vibrational excited states of 1 and accompanied it with semiempirical, DFT, and ab initio 

calculations. The following spectra were measured (mostly at room temperature and 77 K): 

absorption, fluorescence, fluorescence anisotropy, fluorescence excitation, fluorescence 

excitation anisotropy, magnetic circular dichroism, and electron energy loss (EELS) in the 

ground state. We have also measured the linear dichroism in stretched polyethylene and deduced 

the purely polarized spectra from it. We have further obtained the absorption spectra of the first 

excited singlet and triplet states, including absolute intensities. The T1 → Tn absorption 

spectrum was obtained both from laser flash photolysis and from a steady-state absorption 

experiment. In these measurements, a mixture of 1 and anthracene sensitizer in cyclohexane 

solution was irradiated at a wavelength absorbed nearly exclusively by anthracene, and 

absorbance in the visible was measured. In the absence of the anthracene sensitizer, the 

absorption was not detectable. We concluded that intersystem crossing in 1 is negligible, at least 

in solution. The absorption spectra of the radical cation and the radical anion of 1 were measured 

for us by Dr. John Miller at Brookhaven National Laboratory. A selection of these results is 

displayed in Figures 4 - 8. 

 10
Figure 4. T1 and S1 states of 1 from EELS 

and UV absorption spectroscopy. 

Figure 5. Magnetic circular dichroism of 1 (top) and its polarized absorption in stretched polyethylene (bottom) along 

with results of PPP calculations. 

 11
 12

18 19

 

20 21 22 23 24

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

I (arb.u.)

ν ( 10 3 cm -1)

Emission

~

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

r

22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Excitation

I (arb.u.)

~

ν (10 3 cm -1)

r

Figure 6. Anisotropy of fluorescence and fluorescence excitation of 1 (3-methylpentane glass at 77 K). 

Figure 7. Absorption spectra of the S1 (red) and T1

(blue, sensitized with anthracene) states of 1 and results 

of CASPT2 calculations. 
 

 We have also measured the IR spectra of 1 in stretched polyethylene at room and low 

temperature and calculated the frequencies and polarizations of the transitions. These results 

were used to analyze the dichroism observed in the UV region. The detailed interpretation of all 

the spectra is being published. Here we merely note the presence of an unusual discrepancy 

between the conclusion that seems obvious from the fluorescence polarization and magnetic 

circular dichroism spectra, as well as the PPP, TD-DFT, and CASPT2 computational results, 

namely that the first excited singlet state is quite isolated, and the clear conclusion from the linear 

dichroism in stretched polyethylene, supported by the results of SORCI computations, namely 

that two oppositely polarized nearly degenerate states are present in the region of the lowest 

singlet excitation. Our best interpretation is that the first singlet excitation is indeed isolated and 

that the linear dichroism results are distorted by the simultaneous presence of the C2 and Cs

conformers, which happen to have mutually perpendicular principal orientation axes in stretched 

polyethylene. 

 The calculated and experimental excitation energies of 1 are listed in Table 2. The S1

excitation energy was determined from absorption and fluorescence spectra and the T1 excitation 

energy was known from a study11

 of solution sensitization with donors of different triplet 

energies. We have added a value for the polycrystalline solid using EELS, and are presently 

attempting to use the same method to ascertain the energy of the T2 state as well. Within the 

experimental uncertainty of about 0.1 eV the singlet excitation energy is twice the triplet 

excitation energy, both in an isolated molecule in solution and in a polycrystalline solid, and 

singlet fission should be roughly thermoneutral as long as the chromophore coupling is small. 

The same should be true in covalent dimers of 1, again provided that chromophore coupling does 

not change the state energies much. 

 The photophysical data for 1 are collected in Table 3 and it is seen that they are also 

highly favorable for a hoped-for singlet fission chromophore. In particular, the fluorescence 

yield is very high, suggesting that there are no active channels likely to compete with singlet 

50

40

30

20

10

0

10-3

ε (M -1 cm -1 )

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

λ (nm)

O

 Anion

660 nm

 Cation

540 nm

Figure 8. Absorption spectra of the radical cation (blue) and radical anion (red) 

of 1 from pulse radiolysis (courtesy of J. Miller, Brookhaven National 

Laboratory). 

 13
fission in crystals or dimers, such as intersystem crossing, internal conversion, or photoproduct 

formation. The fluorescence lifetime is quite long, giving singlet fission a good chance to 

compete successfully with emission. The results are in good agreement with the absence of any 

detectable triplet-triplet absorption upon excitation of solutions of 1, in which singlet fission 

cannot take place. 

Table 2. Excited State Energies for 1,3-Diphenylisobenzofuran (1) in eV 

 Calcd. Obsd. (solution) Obsd. (solid) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

S1 3.0 ~2.8 ~2.7 

T1 1.7 ~1.5a

 ~1.4b

T2 3.3 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

a

 From bracketing with sensitizers. b From electron energy loss. 

Table 3. Photophysical Characteristics of 1 in Solution.a

______________________________________________________________________________ 

a

 The position of the first absorption and fluorescence peaks, the fluorescence quantum yield, the 

fluorescence rate constant, the position of the intense triplet-triplet absorption peak, and the 

triplet decay rate constant, respectively. CH: cyclohexane, THF: tetrahydrofuran, AN: 

acetonitrile, DMSO: dimethylsulfoxide, TOL: toluene, DMF: dimethylformamide 

 Since most of the reported successful observations of singlet fission were performed on 

crystalline material, we have attempted the same type of experiment on a polycrystalline film of 

1. We found that unlike an unsensitized solution, the polycrystalline sample shows an intense 

triplet-triplet absorption spectrum upon UV irradiation. It turned out to be relatively difficult to 

obtain an accurate value of the triplet yield but the data we have obtained so far leave little doubt 

 14
that it is at least 10% and possibly as high as 50%. The triplet formation action spectrum 

(efficiency of triplet formation as a function of energy of the exciting photon) follows accurately 

the absorption spectrum. This is exactly the behavior anticipated for exothermic or 

thermoneutral singlet fission, which we attempted to achieve by choosing 1 as the chromophore. 

We cannot strictly rule out the possibility that intersystem crossing from S1 to T1, which is 

negligible in the isolated molecule, is for some unanticipated reason efficient in the crystalline 

material and generates the triplet state that we observe, but it appears highly improbable. 

Definitive evidence will be obtained if the triplet quantum yield is found to exceed 100%, or 

from future measurements in magnetic field. For the moment, we consider it virtually certain 

that 1 is the first crystalline material in which singlet fission has been observed by design. The 

next question is, will it also occur in covalent dimers of 1? 

Calculations of Coupling in Covalent Dimers

 The next task was the covalent coupling of two molecules of the chromophore 1 into a 

dimer. Nothing was known about the strength of coupling that is required for singlet fission to 

be fast relative to fluorescence, which has a natural lifetime of about 5 ns in the monomer and 

could be somewhat faster in the dimer. A subcontractor on the project, Prof. M. Ratner, and his 

student have performed a series of calculations for a variety of dimers and evaluated the coupling 

constant. Selected results are shown in Table 4. In themselves, these numbers have no absolute 

significance, but they do provide a feeling for the relative strength of coupling between the two 

chromophores present in the molecules. They need to be calibrated by measurement of absolute 

singlet fission rates in several dimers.

 15
Table 4. Electronic Matrix Elements and Free Energies for Various Covalent Dimers of 1a

______________________________________________________________ 

a

 Matrix element for HOMO-HOMO (th) and for LUMO-LUMO (tl) interaction, free energy of S0

to S1 excitation, and of singlet fission. Structural formulas of the dimers are shown in Figure 9. 

 16
O O D2

O

O

D11 o

O

D12

O O

D1

O

O D15

O

O

D14

O

O

D13

O

O

D5

O

O

O

O

D8 D7

O

O

D20

O

O

D21

O

O

D17

O

O

D6

O

O

D9

O

O

D22

O

O D19

O

O

D18

O

O

O

D16

O

N

D3

O

O

D23

O

O

D24

O

O

D4

O

O

D10

Figure 9. Structures of dimers of 1 for which DFT computations have been performed.

Synthesis of Covalent Dimers

 Figure 2 presents the chemical structures of the dimers 2 - 4 that were synthesized for the 

purpose. The synthetic paths to 2 - 4 are shown in Figures 10, 11, and 12, respectively. The 

routes shown for 3 and 4 are particularly simple and efficient, and the same procedure was 

subsequently also employed for 2. We will not discuss the details of the synthetic procedures 

and their pros and cons here, and merely note that the purification of the products is quite 

demanding, especially due to their sensitivity to the simultaneous action of light and atmospheric 

oxygen. It was done very carefully, and we believe that the disagreement between the absorption 

and fluorescence excitation spectra of 4 that will be noted below is genuine and not due to a 

minor impurity. 

 17
Figure 10. Synthetic route to 2. 

Figure 11. Synthetic route to 3. 

 18
Figure 12. Synthetic route to 4. 

Solution Photophysics of the Weakly Coupled Dimers 2 and 3 

 We start this section by commenting on the behavior of 2 and 3 as polycrystalline solids. 

Since we noted above that irradiation of polycrystalline 1 produces triplets fairly efficiently, 

almost certainly by singlet fission, it is not surprising that solid 2 and 3 do so as well. From the 

point of view of application in a solar cell, they however offer no obvious advantage, and are 

harder to make. The interesting question in their case is whether their dimeric nature permits 

efficient singlet fission within a single molecule, and this section therefore focuses on their 

photophysics in solution. 

 The issues to be addressed are (i) is singlet or triplet excitation in these dimers localized 

in one of the constituent chromophores, or delocalized as it undoubtedly is in a crystal, (ii) is the 

coupling between the two chromophores contained within 2 and 3 strong enough for singlet 

fission to compete with fluorescence and other possibly present channels that depopulate the S1

state, (iii) is the coupling of the chromophores weak enough not to perturb the state energies 

excessively, or does it shift the excitation energy of the S1 state below twice that of T1, making 

the formation of a pair of triplets from the excited singlet endothermic, hence singlet fission too 

slow. 

 We have examined the spectral properties of 2 and 3 similarly as those of 1. Figure 13 

compares the absorption and fluorescence spectra of 1 - 4 and Figure 14 compares their triplettriplet absorption spectra obtained by anthracene sensitization in DMSO. The spectra of 2 and 3

are only about 20 nm red shifted relative to 1, similarly as in crystalline 1, leaving no doubt that 

the coupling between the two chromophores in the dimeric molecules is only weak, as 

anticipated. This is reasonable, considering that there is only hyperconjugative interaction 

between the two halves of the dimer in 2, and that there is very limited conjugation between them 

when the ortho methyl groups force them to be nearly perpendicular to each other in 3. 

 The spectra are compatible with the localization of excitation on one of the 

chromophores, presumably rapidly jumping from one to the other. TD-DFT calculations of 

optimized S1 and T1 geometries (Table 1) support this interpretation. 

 The photophysical properties of 2 and 3 are collected in Tables 5 and 6. In cyclohexane 

solution, there is no indication that the dimers 2 and 3 undergo singlet fission as isolated species. 

Their photophysical properties are nearly identical with those of 1 in the same solvent. The 

quantum yield of fluorescence is still very close to unity and its lifetime is 5 - 6 ns as before. No 

triplet-triplet absorption is detectable after direct irradiation of the solution without a sensitizer, 

nor is any other transient absorption other than that due to the S1 → Sn process. This absorption 

decays with the same lifetime as fluorescence, and the decay follows a single exponential. 

 19
~

Figure 13. Absorption (solid line) and fluorescence (broken

line) spectra of the ground state of 1 (blue), 2 (red), 3 (green) 

and 4 (purple) in acetonitrile. The fluorescence spectrum of 4

in toluene is also shown. 

Figure 14. Triplet-triplet absorption of 1 (blue), 2 (red), 3 (green) sensitized 

with anthracene (small dots) and obtained upon direct excitation (large dots,

intensity multiplied by ten) in DMSO. 

 20
Table 5. Photophysical Characteristics of 2 and 3.a 

a

 For symbol definition see Table 3. ΦT is the triplet quantum yield. CH: cyclohexane, AN: 

acetonitrile, DMSO: dimethylsulfoxide, DMF: dimethylformamide 

Table 6. Multiexponential Fluorescence Decay of 2 and 3 in Solution.a 

a Ai are the amplitudes associated with the lifetimes τi shown. CH: cyclohexane, THF: 

tetrahydrofuran, AN: acetonitrile, DMSO: dimethylsulfoxide, DMF: dimethylformamide 

 21
 The situation changes when the solvent is highly polar. In DMF or DMSO, and to a 

lesser degree in acetonitrile, the fluorescence quantum yield is considerably reduced (Table 5) 

and fluorescence lifetime is shorter and multiexponential (Table 6). Triplet-triplet absorption 

after direct excitation without a sensitizer becomes quite pronounced and the quantum yield of T1

is 0.01 - 0.06. These measurements were repeated at various temperatures and the highest 

observed quantum yield of T1 was about 0.09. However, time-resolved absorption measurements 

show that the faster decay of the S1 species is not due to its conversion into T1. Instead, in a few 

hudred ps this decay produces a new species S* with a broad absorption peak from 500 to 600 

nm and another broad peak near 670 nm. Our search for a fluorescence from this species has 

been fruitless. The species S* decays to form the triplet on a time scale of a few ns (Figure 15). 

The lifetime for the decay of S1 is equal to the rise time of S* and the decay time of S* is equal to 

the rise time of T1. Global analysis of transient absorption in the 450 to 700 nm region at times 

up to 8 ns yielded the absorption spectra of S1, S*, and T1, evidence for stimulated emission from 

S1, and a set of rate constants for the transformation of S1 to S* and back and for the 

transformation of S* to T1 in 2 and 3 (Figure 16 and Table 7). The inefficiency of T1 formation 

is attributed to the conversion of S* and probably also T* to S0. The overall reaction scheme is 

shown in Figure 17 (for simplicity we do not show explicitly the direct path from T* to S0). 

 The structural assignment of S*, which is only formed in polar solvents, to a dipolar 

species in which a radical cation of 1 is covalently attached to the radical cation of 1 is secured 

by comparison of its absorption spectrum with those of the radical cation and radical anion of 1

(Figure 8). A good precedent for this type of intramolecular charge transfer in a polar solution is 

provided by 9,9'-bianthryl.12

 The existence of T*, the triplet state of the dipolar species S*, is 

postulated to account for the temperature dependence of the triplet yield. Its absorption spectrum 

is expected to be essentially identical with that of S* and it is believed to be only slightly more 

stable than S*, because the two unpaired electrons are well separated in space. 

 At room temperature the vertically excited state S1 is rapidly converted by electron 

transfer into an equilibrium mixture with the dipolar species S*, which can undergo back 

electron transfer to yield S1. From temperature dependence of the equilibrium constant we find 

that S* is more stable than S1 by 1.8 kcal/mol. At low temperatures, the electron transfer in S1 to 

yield S* becomes rate limiting and has an activation energy of 3 kcal/mol. At the same time, the 

quantum yield of T1 formation increases, and this is attributed to a shift of the equilibrium 

between S* and T* in favor of the lower energy species T*. The available data are not good 

enough to permit a quantitative evaluation of their energy difference. 

 Upon the disappearance of one molecule of S*, 1.2 ± 0.4 molecules of T1 are formed. 

Within the error margin, this can be attributed fully to intersystem crossing, and singlet fission 

need not be invoked, although we cannot exclude that it makes a minor contribution to the 

formation of T1. 

 The nature of the inter-chromophore coupling in 2 and 3 is distinctly different than the 

stacking π-face - π-face interaction in crystalline 1, but the effects on absorption spectra are 

similar, a red shift of about 20 nm. This suggests that the contrast between the efficient singlet 

fission in polycrystalline 1 and non-existent singlet fission in the isolated dimers 2 and 3 is not 

due to a vastly different strength of the inter-chromophore coupling. Instead, we believe that it is 

related to the delocalized nature of the S1 excitation in the crystal and localized nature of S1

excitation in the dimers, along the lines discussed above in connection with Figure 1. It is of 

 22
interest to direct future efforts in the direction of covalent structures in which the excitation 

would also be delocalized, perhaps stacked dimers or oligomers and polymers instead of dimers. 

Figure 15. Transient absorption at 575 nm of 1 (blue) and 2 (red) obtained upon direct excitation at 400 

nm in DMSO. 

Figure 16. Absorption spectra of the S1, S*, and T1 states of 2, transient

bleach of S0, and stimulated emission from S1 obtained from global analysis of

 23
Figure 17. Reaction Scheme for the 

Photophysics of 2 and 3 in DMSO. 

Table 7. Rate Constantsa for the Photophysics of 2 and 3 in DMSO solution. 

RT rate contants (1/ns) kF kET kBET kNR kT 

2 DMSO 0.23 1.8 2.8 ~1.0 ~0.1 

3 DMSO 0.25 3.8 4.9 ~0.8 ~0.09 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

a

 See Figure 17 for the meaning of symbols. 

Solution Photophysics of the Strongly Coupled Dimer 4

 It is clear in Fig. 13 that the first transition in 4 is not just doubled in intensity relative to 

that of 1 and otherwise nearly unchanged, like those of 2 and 3. Instead, it is significantly red 

shifted and intensified. This is true for the solid spectrum as well and is not surprising, given the 

quite strong direct conjugation when the two halves of the molecule are nearly coplanar. This 

structure is best viewed as a single chromophore conjugated throughout, even though it still has 

the capability to accommodate two triplet excitations after the two halves are uncoupled by 

twisting around the central bond. Our investigations of this dimer are just now in course as a part 

of the follow-up contract, but some photophysical results can already be stated here (Table 8). 

 In the solid state, and also in solution, T1 formation is easily detectable, but only at higher 

excitation energies. The triplet formation action spectrum does not follow the absorption 

spectrum, as it did in solid 1 - 3. Instead, in solution and in the solid, it shows a clear threshold 

at about twice the triplet energy of 1. Clearly, in 4, the coupling of the two halves is too strong 

for the condition E(S1) ≥ 2 E(T1) to be satisfied. Even above the threshold, the triplet formation 

efficiency is low, only 3%, undoubtedly because singlet fission has to compete with fast 

vibrational deactivation and/or internal conversion. It appears that in 4 the coupling is strong 

enough to undergo singlet fission in solution and in neat crystalline material, but that it also is 

strong enough to lower the singlet excitation energy below twice the triplet excitation energy. 

 24
Table 8. Photophysical Characteristics of 4 in Solution.a

a

 For symbol definition see Tables 3 and 5. CH: cyclohexane, TOL: toluene; AN: acetonitrile, 

DMSO: dimethylsulfoxide, DMF: dimethylformamide 

Summary 

 We have considered the potential benefits offered by using singlet fission sensitizers in 

photovoltaic cells and identified two key issues involved in the search for such sensitizers. One 

of these is thermodynamic and deals with the arrangement of the electronic levels of the 

chromophore, and the other is kinetic and deals with the strength of coupling between the two or 

more chromophores that need to be present in a singlet fission sensitizer. Considerable 

theoretical and experimental progress in both has been described, and it has been pointed out that 

the two criteria impose contradictory demands. 

 A set of guidelines for the search for an optimal singlet fission chromophore has been 

elaborated, and has led to the first observation of what we believe to be singlet fission in a 

rationally designed polycrystalline neat solid sensitizer, 1, and its covalent dimers 2 - 4. The 

triplet yield has not yet been measured accurately, but in 1 itself it appears to be at least 10%. 

The behavior of the covalent dimers 2 - 4 in solution is different. In nonpolar solvents, the 

weakly coupled dimers 2 and 3 form no triplets, and the coupling between the constituents is 

clearly too weak. The thermodynamic criterion is met, but the kinetic one is not. In strongly 

polar environments, 2 and 3 form triplets in yields that range up to ~9%, but this occurs primarily 

or exclusively by intersystem crossing in a dipolar intermediate. Although this is interesting 

photophysics, it does not lie on the path to more efficient singlet fission. In dimer 4, the coupling 

is strong enough for singlet fission to take place with a triplet yield of ~3%, and the kinetic 

criterion is satisfied. However, the coupling is so strong that the thermodynamic criterion is no 

longer satisfied and the singlet fission takes place only upon excitation above a threshold that lies 

 25
 26

 

considerably above the 0-0 transition into the lowest excited singlet state. Competition with 

vibrational deactivation and/or internal conversion is then inevitable and is responsible for the 

low triplet yield. 

 The paths to further progress are clear: (i) work with nanocrystals of the monomer, (ii) 

find a mode of covalent coupling that causes the initial singlet excitation to be delocalized (this 

may involve stacking interactions or perhaps going to oligomers and polymers), (iii) identify a 

different chromophore in which the excitation energy of the lowest triplet T1 is significantly 

smaller than half the excitation energy of the lowest excited singlet S1, such that even after the 

required strong coupling in a dimer the S1 excitation energy remains larger than twice the T1

excitation energy. These routes are being pursued in a current follow-up project. 

References

1. I. Paci, J. C. Johnson, X. Chen, G. Rana, D. Popović, D. E. David, A. J. Nozik, M. A. Ratner, 

and J. Michl, “Singlet Fission for Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells: Can a Suitable Sensitizer Be 

Found?,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 16546-16553, 2006. 

2. M. Hanna and A. J. Nozik, “Solar conversion efficiency of photovoltaic and photoelectrolysis 

cells with carrier multiplication absorbers,” J. Appl. Phys. 100, 074510/1-074510/8, 2006. 

3. A. M. Müller, Y. S. Avlasevich, K. Müllen, and C. J. Bardeen, “Evidence for exciton fission 

and fusion in a covalently linked tetracene dimer,” Chem. Phys. Lett. 421, 518-522, 2006. 

4. J. Michl and V. Bonačić-Koutecký, Electronic Aspects of Organic Photochemistry, John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1990. 

5. R. Pariser, “Theory of the electronic spectra and structure of the polyacenes and of alternant 

hydrocarbons,” J. Chem. Phys. 24, 250-268, 1956. 

6. J. Koutecky, “Contribution to the theory of alternant systems,” J. Chem. Phys. 44, 3702-3706, 

1966; “Some properties of semiempirical Hamiltonians,” J. Chem. Phys. 47, 1501-1511, 1967. 

7. V. Bonačić-Koutecký, J. Koutecký, and J. Michl, “Neutral and Charged Biradicals, 

Zwitterions, Funnels in S1, and Proton Translocation: Their Role in Photochemistry, 

Photophysics, and Vision,” Angew. Chem. Internat. Ed. Engl. 26, 170-189, 1987. 

8. J. Michl, “Singlet and Triplet States of an Electron Pair in a Molecule--A Simple Model,” J. 

Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM.) 260, 299-311, 1992. 

9. Michl, J.; Nozik, A. J.; Chen, X.; Johnson, J. C.; Rana, G.; Akdag, A.; Schwerin, A. F. 

“Toward singlet fission for excitonic solar cells,” in Organic Photovoltaics VIII, Kafafi, Z. H. 

and Lane, P. A., Eds., Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6656, 66560E1-66560E1, 2007. 
 27

 

10. C. R. Flynn and J. Michl, “π,π-Biradicaloid Hydrocarbons: o-Xylylene. Photochemical 

Preparation from 1,4-Dihydrophthalazine in Rigid Glass, Electronic Spectroscopy, and 

Calculations,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 96, 3280-3288, 1974. 

11. W. G. Herkstroeter and P. B. Merkel, “The triplet state energies of rubrene and 

diphenylisobenzofuran,” J. Photochem. 16, 331-342, 1981. 

12. M. Schütz and R. R. Schmidt, “Deactivation of 9,9'-Bianthryl in Solution Studied by 

Photoacoustic Calorimetry and Fluorescence,” J. Phys. Chem. 100, 2012-2018, 1996. 
F1146-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

December 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final Subcontract Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

15 August 2005 - 14 October 2008 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Singlet-Fission Sensitizers for Ultra-High Efficiency Excitonic Solar 

Cells 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

J. Michl 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/SR-520-44685 

5e. TASK NUMBER

PVA72401 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry 

CB 215 

Boulder, Colorado 80309-0214 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

XAT-5-33636-01 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR-520-44685 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NREL Technical Monitor: Lori Green/Kaitlyn VanSant 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Sensitizer dyes capable of producing two triplet excited states from a singlet excited state produced by the absorption 

of a single photon would allow an increase of the efficiency of photovoltaic cells by up to a factor of 1.5, provided that 

each triplet injects an electron into a semiconductor such as TiO2. Although singlet fission in certain crystals and 

polymers was reported long ago, little is known about its efficiency in dyes suitable for use as sensitizers of 

photoinduced charge separation on semiconductors surfaces. In summary, we have produced the first designed 

crystalline material for singlet fission, and we have made the first determinations of the coupling strength in a 

covalent dimer that is required for efficient singlet fission. We have suggested paths for overcoming a problem that 

has been identified and have already started to develop them in a follow-up project. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

PV; singlet fission; sensitizer; ultra-high efficiency; excitonic; solar cells; photoinduced charge; semiconductor; 

nanocrystals; 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18