3.1 Computational methods
In the following part of this study, we will therefore use the DFT/B3LYP Method which has been able to produce optimal results compared to the other methods; this calculation will be applied to the different derivatives obtained by injecting several groups into the basic molecule G2TTPG2 3T. The base 6-31G (d, p) was used for all calculations. The absorption energies of the studied compounds are obtained via the ZINDO method, which is highly reliable compared to other methods and has been applied to geometries already optimized, these calculation methods have proven their efficiencies on other conjugated polymers [32]. The calculations were made using the Gaussian 09 program.
3.2 Geometric structures of derived compounds
Figure 5 illustrates the optimized structures of the new derivatives obtained from the basic compound G2TTPG2 3T by grafting the following groups CN, EDOT-S, Omet, OmetOmet, EDOT, F. These derivatives are respectively named C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 All the geometries of these molecular structures were calculated with the hybrid function B3LYP combined with the base 6-31G (d,p) using the GAUSSIAN 09 program [32].
The results obtained show that the optimized structures of the compounds derived from G2TTPG2 3T have a similar conformation (quasi-planar conformation)
The different geometric properties of the molecules corresponding to the structures completely optimized Ci (i=1 to 6) are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3: Inter-cyclic distances of the studied molecules Ci (i=1 to 6) obtained by DFT /B3LYP/6-31G (d, p) level
Compound
|
C1
|
C2
|
C3
|
C4
|
C5
|
C6
|
d1 N52-C1
|
1.396
|
1.399
|
1.393
|
1.396
|
1.397
|
1.387
|
d2 C4-C6
|
1.441
|
1.464
|
1.440
|
1.441
|
1.439
|
1.439
|
d3 C10-C11
|
1.442
|
1.464
|
1.441
|
1.442
|
1.439
|
1.439
|
d4 C15-N53
|
1.396
|
1.399
|
1.398
|
1.396
|
1.396
|
1.387
|
Table 4: Dihedral angles of the studied molecules Ci (i=1 to 6) Obtained by DFT /B3LYP/6-31G (d, p) level
qi(°)
|
C1
|
C2
|
C3
|
C4
|
C5
|
C6
|
q1
|
96.9
|
109.4
|
124.2
|
96.9
|
94.5
|
125.5
|
q2
|
162.3
|
76.9
|
179
|
162.3
|
178.4
|
176.7
|
q3
|
157.6
|
99.4
|
179.2
|
160.1
|
179.5
|
176.7
|
q4
|
111.2
|
94.7
|
96
|
111.2
|
108.1
|
59.7
|
The analysis of the results in Table 3 allowed us to observe that the insertion of fluorine (F) induced a slight decrease in the lengths of the N52-C1, C4-C6, C10-C11, and C15-N53 bonds, these short bonds promote intramolecular charge transfer (ICT).
Whereas for the introduction of the 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (EDOT) group, the distances d1, d2, d3 and d4 increased. The insertion of the cyano group decreases the intercyclic distances N52-C1, C15-N53 and increases the other distances C10-C11, C4-C6.
The data in Table 3 show that the distances di (i=1 to 4) are shorter for all the compounds, this shows a character C = C of the d-bond for all the studied compounds. It can be deduced that the contact between the two carbazole-thiophene fragments is crucial, which improves the ICT character for these six compounds; this is important to shift the absorption spectra towards red.
3.3 Electronic properties
Among the parameters that most influence the electronic properties of conjugated organic materials there is the energy of the gap, which is in turn directly related to the energies of the HOMO and LUMO orbital levels, hence the calculation of these orbital frontiers (theoretical or experimental) is essential. Figure 5 schematizes the electron density distributions of the G2TTPG2 3T molecule and its derivatives.
For the HOMO level, it is noted that for the basic compound as well as all the other studied compounds Ci (i=1 to 6) the electron density is incorporated into the central group.
As regards the electron density of the LUMO orbital, it is localized on one of the two carbazole units for compounds C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and the basic compound G2TTPG2 3T, while for the compound C6 the electron density of its LUMO orbital is visible on both units of carbazole, this location of the electron density on carbazole indicates that it’s the richest part in electron π.
This shows that the transfer from an electron donating party, which is localized in the center of the compound (unit of carbazole), to an acceptor, it’s for the C1, C2, C3 and C4 molecules.
The gap energy is among the most important parameters to determine the quality of π-conjugated compounds. To obtain optimal results, the most cost-effective technique is to increase the aromaticity of these compounds by introducing or attaching the nucleus by π-conjugated electron donor groups.
Then to better understand the effect of the incorporation of different fragments on optoelectronic properties, we have, in the next part, examined with precision the HOMO and LUMO energy levels for the G2TTPG2 3T compound and its derivatives. The theoretical calculation of the HOMO and LUMO values by the DFT/B3LYP/6-31G (d, p) method allowed us to analyze these levels and also to calculate the gap energy which is defined as the difference between EHOMO and ELUMO.
Table 5: The HOMO, LUMO and Gap energies of the studied molecules obtained by DFT /B3LYP/6-31G (d, p) level
Compound
|
EHOMO
|
ELUMO
|
Egap (eV)
|
G2TTPG2 3T
|
-4.800
|
-1.989
|
2.81
|
C1
|
-4.880
|
-3.729
|
1.15
|
C2
|
-4.768
|
-1.279
|
3.49
|
C3
|
-4.636
|
-1.862
|
2.78
|
C4
|
-4.637
|
-1.722
|
2.91
|
C5
|
-4.690
|
-1.570
|
3.12
|
C6
|
-4.854
|
-2.323
|
2.53
|
Table 5 presents the values of the HOMO, LUMO and Egap energies of the studied molecules. The energies of HOMOs range from -4,880 eV to -4,636 eV while the energies of LUMOs range from -3.729 eV to -1.279 eV.
Concerning the gap energies, the values are classified as follows: C1 (1.151eV) < C6 (2.531eV) < C3 (2.774eV) < C4 (2.915eV) < C5 (3.120eV) < C2 (3.489eV)
We notice that the energy gap increases as we move from the compound C1 to the compound C2, this is due to the increase in the order of the π conjugation and the substituent that acts as a donor electron in the molecule.
By analyzing these results, it is noted that substitution by the 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene fragment increases the energy of the LUMO and consequently increases the gap (for the compounds C2 and C5), whereas the introduction of the cyano group in the compound C1 decreased the energy of LUMO which resulted in a decrease in the gap energy.
It can be deduced from these interpretations that the best gap energy values obtained are for the two compounds C1 (1.151 eV) and C6 (2.531 eV) which have been substituted by the cyano group and Fluorine.