robenzene instead of from toluene led to a threefold increase
in the efficiency of the solar cell.2a Nevertheless, there is
still plenty of room to improve the efficiency of this type of
bulk-heterojunction photovoltaic cell. Recently the necessity
of improving the Voc has attracted much attention.5 There is
a need for optimizing the electronic match between the donor
and acceptor component, in order to minimize unnecessary
internal loss of open circuit voltage. We have previously
shown that, within certain limits with respect to the elec-
trodes’ workfunction (i.e., as long as there are ohmic contacts
at both electrodes), the Voc of a bulk-heterojunction PV cell
scales linearly with the decrease of the first reduction
potential of the acceptor.6 Later, others confirmed the related
relationship, now between the Voc and the first oxidation
potential of the donor material.5a,b Hence, there is, within
certain limits,7 a linear relationship between the donor-
HOMO and acceptor-LUMO energy difference and the Voc
of the bulk-heterojunction device. Consequently, the upper
limit for the Voc of bulk-heterojunction solar cells is
determined by the energy difference of the HOMO of the
electron donor and the LUMO of the electron acceptor. It
should be noted at this point that the fact8 that for any given
donor-acceptor couple as active layer material, minimizing
the difference in workfunction of the two metal electrodes
leads to a lowering of the Voc, (i.e., now entering the situation
where the Fermi levels of one or both electrodes are not
pinned to the relevant molecular orbital energies, leading to
a (also Metal Insulater Metal (MIM) type) device with non-
ohmic contacts), is not in conflict with the above-mentioned
linear relationship between the orbital levels and the Voc.
Since the LUMO levels in MDMO-PPV and [60]PCBM
(1; Figure 1) are estimated to be at 2.8 and 3.7 eV below
raised substantially before the efficiency of the forward
electron transfer from MDMO-PPV to the acceptor is
lowered to a significant extent. (In the extreme case, if the
two LUMO levels, involved in the photoinduced electron
transfer, become too close in energy, the driving force would
be lost.) State-of-the-art MDMO-PPV:[60]PCBM cells
show Voc values up to 850 mV, while the (donor) HOMO-
(acceptor) LUMO gap of this pair is around 1.3 eV. This
Voc value might be close to what can be maximally expected
from this pair, since a loss of 0.2 V at each electrode is
assumed to happen in these specific devices.7b In other words,
we estimate that the Voc of MDMO-PPV:methano[60]-
fullerene cells could, in principle, be increased to ∼1.3 V
(i.e., by ∼50%), upon diminishing the donor-acceptor
LUMO-LUMO gap from 0.9 to 0.5 eV, which would still
allow for efficient charge generation. An increased Voc raises
the efficiency of the solar cells even in a more than linear
way by increasing the fill factor.8 The main challenge,
however, is how to alter the methanofullerene by means of
substituent effects in such a way that the LUMO is
significantly raised, still fully located on the fullerene moiety,
and without introducing concomitant intramolecular photo-
induced electron transfer (or hole transfer) from an electron-
rich addend moiety to the fullerene moiety. This process was
previously observed by Verhoeven et al. in a similar
compound, a 4-dialkylaminophenyl-substituted fulleropyr-
rolidine.9
In this paper, we report on our efforts to influence the
LUMO level of PCBM by placing electron-donating (meth-
oxy and methyl thioether) and electron-withdrawing (fluo-
rine) substituents on the phenyl ring of PCBM.
Wudl et al. have found that para substituents on the phenyl
rings in diphenylmethano[60]fullerenes (3; Figure 1) have a
negligible effect on the reduction potential of the fullerene
moiety.10 Subsequently, it was claimed that in spirometha-
nofullerenes a better interaction between the aromatic sub-
stituent and the fullerene cage occurred through “pericon-
jugation”. The difference in the first reduction potential
between a spirofluorene derivative and the corresponding bis-
4-dialkylamino derivative (4; Figure 1) was found to be ∼70
meV.
In contrast to their two approaches we aimed for a possible
direct through space effect of a substituent itself on the
carbon cage. We hypothesized that an electron-donating
substituent on the phenyl ring of PCBM should be at closest
proximity to the fullerene cage when connected to the
2-position of the phenyl ring. Subsequent alkoxy or thioether
groups on the phenyl ring could then add to the effect of the
Figure 1. Structures of [60]PCBM (1), 4-N,N-dialkylamino[60]-
PCBM (2), diphenylmethano[60]fullerene (3), bis-4-N,N-dialkyl-
amino-diphenylmethano[60]fullerene (4) and substituted PCBM
compounds (5): R ) 4-OMe (a), 3,4-OMe (b), 2,3,4-OMe (c),
2-OMe (d), 2,5-OMe (e), 2,4,6-OMe (f), 3,4-methylenedioxy (g),
2-SMe (h), 4-SMe (i), and pentafluoro (j).
the vacuum level, respectively1e (i.e., a 0.9 eV difference!),
we expect that the LUMO level of the acceptor can still be
(7) That is: as long as the Fermi levels of the electrodes are pinned to
the energie levels of the relevant molecular orbitals; i.e., in a device with
ohmic contacts. See also: (a) Frohne, H.; Shaheen, S. E.; Brabec, C. J.;
Mu¨ller, D. C.; Sariciftci, N. S.;Meerholz, K. ChemPhysChem 2002, 795.
(b) Mihailetchi, V. D.; Blom, P. W. M.; Hummelen, J. C.; Rispens, M. T.
J. Appl. Phys. 2003, 94, 6849.
(5) (a) Gadisa, A.; Svensson, M.; Andersson, M. R.; Ingana¨s, O. Appl.
Phys. Lett. 2004, 84, 1609. (b) Scharber, M. C.; Mu¨hlbacher, D.; Koppe,
M.; Denk, P.; Waldauf, C.; Heeger, A. J.; Brabec, C. J. AdV. Mater. 2006,
18, 789. (c) Mutolo, K. L.; Mayo, E. I.; Rand, B. P.; Forrest, S. R.;
Thompson, M. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 8108.
(8) Mihailetchi, V. D.; Koster, L. J. A.; Blom, P. W. M. Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2004, 85, 970.
(6) (a) Brabec, C. J.; Cravino, A.; Meissner, D.; Sariciftci, N. S.;
Fromherz, T.; Rispens, M. T.; Sanchez, L.; Hummelen, J. C. AdV. Funct.
Mater. 2001, 11, 374. (b) Brabec, J. C.; Cravino, A.; Meissner, D.; Sariciftci,
N. S.; Fromherz, T.; Rispens, M. T.; Sanchez, L.; Hummelen, J. C. Thin
Solid Films 2002, 403-404, 368.
(9) Williams, R. M.; Zwier, J. M.; Verhoeven, J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc.
1995, 117, 4093.
(10) Eiermann, M.; Haddon, R. C.; Knight, B.; Li, Q. C.; Maggini, M.;
Martin, N.; Ohno, T.; Prato, M.; Suzuki, T.; Wudl, F. Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed. 1995, 34, 1591.
552
Org. Lett., Vol. 9, No. 4, 2007