M. Filapek et al. / Electrochimica Acta 216 (2016) 449–456
453
Table 1
Comparison of electrochemical and theoretical data.
Code
IEa (CV)
[eV]
EAb (CV)
[eV]
HOMO (DFT)
[eV]
LUMO (DFT)
[eV]
IEc (DFT) [eV]
EAd (DFT) [eV]
Eg (DFT)
[eV]
Eg (CV)
[eV]
Eg (opt)
[eV]
e
f
e
f
f
f
1
2
5.85e (5.80)f
6.29 (6.41)
ꢀ2.75 (-2.68)
ꢀ5.79
ꢀ6.14
ꢀ1.86
ꢀ3.68
5.52
5.94
ꢀ2.15
ꢀ3.92
3.93g (3.37)h
3.10 (3.22)
3.44e (3.41)
2.26 (2.04)
e
f
e
f
h
e
e
ꢀ4.10 (-3.96)
2.46g (2.02)
2.19 (2.45)f
a
IE(eV) = |e|(Eox(onset) + 5.1) measured using GC.
b
c
d
e
f
EA(eV) = ꢀ|e|(Ered(onset) + 5.1) measured using GC.
IE is energy change in the process M ꢀ eꢀ ! Mꢃ+
.
EA is energy change in the process M + eꢀ ! Mꢃꢀ (negative values indicate exothermicity upon reduction of molecule.
determined for solution.
determined for solid state.
from HOMO-LUMO.
from |IE|-|EA|.
g
h
where ITO were used as working electrode). First reducion onsets
measured for the 2 on gold and GC electrodes are almost identical
(-0.99 V and ꢀ1.00 V, respectively). On the other hand, in the case
of Pt electrode onset is lower by about 70 mV (i.e. ꢀ1.07 V). What is
also important difference between onsets E1red and E2red registered
on the Au and GC electrodes is as follows: 240 mV and 220 mV (so
very close in value to each other), while on Pt electrode is almost
300 mV, which suggests difficulties with the charge transfer.
Probably, in this case platinum complex is formed on a surface with
the imide (being O-donating ligand) which impedes the flow of
charge. However, in each case of the conducting electrodes
processes are fully reversible from a formal point of view. As
can be seen at Fig. 6 for ITO (which is semiconducting electrode)
even in the solution under identical conditions processes are
quasi-reversible. Moreover, onsets of the first stage of the
reduction are evidently lower (E1red = ꢀ1.12 V) and quasi-reversible
while second become to be irreversible. For the oxidation we also
observed some variations in onsets (see Table 1S in supp. inf.). But
what is important in the case of platinum and (especially) ITO
electrodes the oxidation onsets were much less apparent, and this
explains the fact that sometimes it is difficult to determine the
oxidation potential of those electrodes (see Fig. 3S in supp. inf.). On
the other hand on GC and Au electrodes are well defined, so if there
are difficulties with electrochemical measuring it should be
decided to use a different type of electrode.
previously the measured potential is dependent on the activity of a
examined substance. Therefore, changing the activity (by changing
the concentration) must affect on the observed potential (it
changes in logarithmic segment). We have to remember that
difference between the cathodic and anodic peaks |Epc-Epa| (peak-
to-peak separation) should be 56 mV (approximately) for one
electron, reversible process. Additionally, the average of this two
peaks (E1/2) is taken as excellent approximation of E0' [11]and is
commonly used by many researchers. On the other hand peak
onset value is also commonly used [24,25]
As shown on the voltamograms above (Fig. 7) with increasing
concentration the maximum of Epa is shifted by 50 mV concen-
trating solution 10-times (in case of 2 at 1 ꢂ10ꢀ2 mol/L precipitates
of measured species occurs). But Epc for the concerned process is
nearly independent from this factor. In our opinion, this
phenomenon is caused by the fact that in each case concentration
of reduced form generated during measurement is approximately
the same (and aredas consequence). But aox is strongly depended
from concentration, thus aox/ared ratio is different in each time. This
implies, that from the thermodynamicall point of view only at low
concentration process is pure reversible (|Epc-Epa| = 56 mV). At
higher concentration process could be mistakenly assigned as
quasi-reversible (for example |Epc-Epa| = 150 mV at 1 ꢂ10ꢀ3 mol/L).
However, in all cases (even in 1 ꢂ10ꢀ2 mol/L solution) peak onset is
constant.
We have studied also the concentration affects on a band gap
determined electrochemically. As it has been already reminded
We have also compared the behavior of the substance in the
form of solutions and the thin layer applied on the surface of the
electrode. As shown at Fig. 8, the oxidation of the carbazole
derivative takes place a bit easier for a solid. Furthermore, in the
solution characteristic irreversible oxidation of carbazole can be
registered, not fully shaped in a solid.
Much bigger differences have been observed making a similar
comparison for perylene derivative (Fig. 9).
It can be easily observed that both oxidation and reduction, in
this case take place much harder in the solid than in solution. In
addition, the reduction is no longer a reversible process (in the
pure sense thermodynamics), and become quasireversible (similar
behavior was reported by A.O. Aleshinloye et al. for similar PDI
derivative [26,27]. This also results in a significant diminution in
“energy gap” determined electrochemically. Moreover, the differ-
ence is surprisingly high ꢀ Eg in the solution is 2.1 eV, while in the
solid state is 2.4 eV. Importantly, the results are almost identical,
regardless of the material of the electrode. What is interesting that
the ratio of current of redox processes changes. In the case of
solutions the reduce peak current (E1red) is comparable to the
current which flows during the oxidation (even higher during
oxidation). In the case of solids the peak of oxidation is almost
unnoticed when the same scale as for reduction is used. So how
this difference and quasi-reversible nature of the reduction should
be explained? It must be remembered that the perylene derivative
is an n-type semiconductor [28]. That is why during the oxidation
Fig. 7. Selected cyclic voltammograms obtained for 2 at different concentration, GC
as working electrode, arrow shows the initial direction of current flow; sweep rate
n
= 100 mV/s, 0.1 M Bu4NPF6 in CH2Cl2.