2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2007.03.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electro-optical analysis of PEDOT symmetrical electrochromic devices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Color contrast is defined as DT = [(T n -T r )/T n )] 9 100, where T n and T r are the transmittance at neutral and reduced states. DT obtained monitoring the transmittance at 550 nm, resulted in variations of less than 5 % from control device and, between 10 and 21 % from flexible device, with voltage at the range 2-2.5 V, reaching a maximum variation of 35 % upon 3.5 V. These results are at same order than values previously reported for PEDOT based electrochromic devices operating at same voltage range [21]. However, it is clear the positive influence of the iPrOH on the electrochromic response, when compared with the control device that was prepared with PEDOT:PSS films from pristine solution and electrolyte.…”
Section: Uv-vis Transmittancesupporting
confidence: 70%
“…Color contrast is defined as DT = [(T n -T r )/T n )] 9 100, where T n and T r are the transmittance at neutral and reduced states. DT obtained monitoring the transmittance at 550 nm, resulted in variations of less than 5 % from control device and, between 10 and 21 % from flexible device, with voltage at the range 2-2.5 V, reaching a maximum variation of 35 % upon 3.5 V. These results are at same order than values previously reported for PEDOT based electrochromic devices operating at same voltage range [21]. However, it is clear the positive influence of the iPrOH on the electrochromic response, when compared with the control device that was prepared with PEDOT:PSS films from pristine solution and electrolyte.…”
Section: Uv-vis Transmittancesupporting
confidence: 70%
“…The high R P value for PEDOT (in oxidized state) is comparable to that reported for PEDOT in a symmetrical PEDOT device. 37 In the PEDOT-PB device, charge transfer impedance during reduction of PEDOT (À0.5 V to PEDOT, Fig. 7b) is 34 100 O and R CT at the counter electrode (+0.5 V to PB), wherein R CT = 3160 O and the redox process can be seen in Fig.…”
Section: Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (Eis)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, resistance due to contacts and counter electrode contribute to RSd , Polarization resistance (RPd ) and capacity (CPd ) are ascribed to separation and accumulation of charges, CPE1 expresses the double layer capacity, CPE2 is introduced because of the rough surfaces and ZWd is Warburg impedance created by diffusion. As seen in Table , RSd of the star‐shaped Tri‐(Ani) 4 ‐COOH device (124.0 Ω) is significantly lower than that reported for a PEDOT symmetrical device which is 386 Ω . Besides, the star‐shaped structure exerts a more profound influence onto its EIS results in Tri‐(Ani) 4 ‐COOH device: value of RCTd decreases to 2471 Ω and CPd arises to 1.184E‐6 F, moreover, RPd is dramatically lower for Tri‐(Ani) 4 ‐COOH device (60.89 Ω) than that of HOOC‐(Ani) 4 ‐COOH device (9350 Ω), implying that the ions from ionic liquid are more available for compensation in Tri‐(Ani) 4 ‐COOH device.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%