G. Tryson

Bio: G. Tryson is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Half-cell & Reference electrode. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 269 citations.

An experimental determination of absolute half‐cell emf’s and single ion free energies of solvation

Abstract: The concept of absolute half‐cell emf is discussed and defined as VMS‐φM for the reaction M→M+(solution)+e−(M), where VMS is the electrostatic potential difference between metal electrode and solution and φM the work function of metal in contact with solution. It is shown that this quantity is equal to VRS‐φR, where VRS is the electrostatic potential difference between a reference electrode in air above the solution and the solution, and φR the work function in air of this reference. The quantity VRS′, the potential difference between reference electrode and the solution surface, was found experimentally by the vibrating condenser method for a number of half‐cells, and φR was determined photoelectrically. It is shown from the variation of VRS′ with electrolyte concentration that the potential difference betwen the bulk of pure H2O and its air interface is ∼0.05 V, the surface being negative relative to bulk, and that this potential is increasingly screened out as electrolyte concentration increases. From ...

Design Rules for Donors in Bulk‐Heterojunction Solar Cells—Towards 10 % Energy‐Conversion Efficiency

Abstract: There has been an intensive search for cost-effective photovoltaics since the development of the first solar cells in the 1950s. [1–3] Among all alternative technologies to silicon-based pn-junction solar cells, organic solar cells could lead the most significant cost reduction. [4] The field of organic photovoltaics (OPVs) comprises organic/inorganic nanostructures like dyesensitized solar cells, multilayers of small organic molecules, and phase-separated mixtures of organic materials (the bulkheterojunction solar cell). A review of several OPV technologies has been presented recently. [5] Light absorption in organic solar cells leads to the generation of excited, bound electron– hole pairs (often called excitons). To achieve substantial energy-conversion efficiencies, these excited electron–hole pairs need to be dissociated into free charge carriers with a high yield. Excitons can be dissociated at interfaces of materials with different electron affinities or by electric fields, or the dissociation can be trap or impurity assisted. Blending conjugated polymers with high-electron-affinity molecules like C60 (as in the bulk-heterojunction solar cell) has proven to be an efficient way for rapid exciton dissociation. Conjugated polymer–C60 interpenetrating networks exhibit ultrafast charge transfer (∼40 fs). [6,7] As there is no competing decay process of the optically excited electron–hole pair located on the polymer in this time regime, an optimized mixture with C60 converts absorbed photons to electrons with an efficiency close to 100%. [8] The associated bicontinuous interpenetrating network enables efficient collection of the separated charges at the electrodes. The bulk-heterojunction solar cell has attracted a lot of attention because of its potential to be a true low-cost photovoltaic technology. A simple coating or printing process would enable roll-to-roll manufacturing of flexible, low-weight PV modules, which should permit cost-efficient production and the development of products for new markets, e.g., in the field of portable electronics. One major obstacle for the commercialization of bulk-heterojunction solar cells is the relatively small device efficiencies that have been demonstrated up to now. [5] The best energy-conversion efficiencies published for small-area devices approach 5%. [9–11] A detailed analysis of state-of-the-art bulk-heterojunction solar cells [8] reveals that the efficiency is limited by the low opencircuit voltage (Voc) delivered by these devices under illumination. Typically, organic semiconductors with a bandgap of about 2 eV are applied as photoactive materials, but the observed open-circuit voltages are only in the range of 0.5–1 V. There has long been a controversy about the origin of the Voc in conjugated polymer–fullerene solar cells. Following the classical thin-film solar-cell concept, the metal–insulator–metal (MIM) model was applied to bulk-heterojunction devices. In the MIM picture, Voc is simply equal to the work-function difference of the two metal electrodes. The model had to be modified after the observation of the strong influence of the reduction potential of the fullerene on the open-circuit volt

Electrochemical Considerations for Determining Absolute Frontier Orbital Energy Levels of Conjugated Polymers for Solar Cell Applications

Abstract: Narrow bandgap conjugated polymers in combination with fullerene acceptors are under intense investigation in the field of organic photovoltaics (OPVs). The open circuit voltage, and thereby the power conversion efficiency, of the devices is related to the offset of the frontier orbital energy levels of the donor and acceptor components, which are widely determined by cyclic voltammetry. Inconsistencies have appeared in the use of the ferrocenium/ferrocene (Fc + /Fc) redox couple, as well as the values used for the absolute potentials of standard electrodes, which can complicate the comparison of materials properties and determination of structure/property relationships.

The absolute electrode potential: an explanatory note (Recommendations 1986)

Abstract: The document begins with the illustration of the most widespread misunderstandings in the literature about the physical meaning of absolute electrode potential. The correct expression for this quantity is then de— rived by a thermodynamic analysis of the components of the emf of an elec— trochemical cell. It is shown that in principle three reference levels can be chosen to measure an absolute value of the electrode potential. Only one of these possesses all the requisites for a meaningful comparison on a con— mon energy scale between electrochemical and physical parameters. Such a comparison is the main problem for which the adoption of a correct scale for absolute electrode potentials is a prerequisites. The document ends with the recommendation of a critically evaluated value for the absolute potential of the standard hydrogen electrode in water and in a few other protic solvents. The \"electrode potential\" is often misinterpreted as the electric potential difference between a point in the bulk of the solid conductor and a point in the bulk of the electrolyte solution (L4) (Note a). In reality, the transfer of charged particles across the electrode/electrolyte solution interface is controlled by the difference in the energy levels of the species in the two phases (at constant T and p), which includes not only electrical (electric potential difference) but also chemical (Gibbs energy difference) contributions since the two phases are compositionally dissimilar (refs. 1,2). The value of the tjq of a \"single\" electrode, e.g. one consisting of an electronic conductor in contact with an ionic conductor, is not amenable of direct experimental determination. This is because the two metallic probes from the measuring instruments, both made of the same material, e.g. a metal M1, have to be put in contact with the bulk of these two phases to pick up the signal there. This creates two additional interfaces: a M1/solution interface, and a M1/electrode metal interface. The experimental set-up can be sketched as follows: M1 SIMIMI (1) where M is the metal of the electrode under measure, S is the electrolyte solution, M1 is the metal of the \"connections\" to the measuring instrument and the prime on M indicates that this terminal differs from the other one (M1) by the electrical state only. It is expedient to replace the M1/S interface with a more specific, reproducible and stable system known as the reference electrode. It ensues that an electrode potential can only be measured against a reference system. The measured quantity is thus a relative electrode potential. For the specific example of cell (1), the measured quantity E, the electrode potential of M relative to M1 (Note b), is conventionally split into two contributions, each pertaining to one of the electrodes: EEM_EM1 (2) EM and EM1 can be expressed in their own on a potential scale referred to another reference electrode. In this respect, the hydrogen electrode is conventionally taken as the universal Note a: This quantity, known as the Galvani potential difference between M and 5, has been defined in ref. 3. Note b: In accord with the IUPAC convention on the sign of electrode potentials, all electrode potentials in this document are to be intended as \"reduction potentials\", i.e. the electrode reaction is written in the direction of the reduction (refs. 3,4). 956 Absolute electrode potential (Recommendations 1986) 957 (for solutions in protic solvents) reference electrode for which, under standard conditions, E°(H/H2) = 0 at every temperature (Note c). Since EM as measured is a relative value, it appeals to many to know what the absolute value may be: viz. , the value of EM measured with respect to a universal reference system not including any additional metal/solution interface. Actually, for the vast majority of practical electrochenilcal problems, there is no need to bring in absolute potentials . The one outstanding example where this concept is useful is the matching of semiconductor energy levels and solution energy levels . However, from a fundamental point of view, this problem comes necessarily about in every case one wants to connect the \"relative\" electrode potential to the \"absolute\" physical quantities of the given system. On a customary basis, since the electrode potential is envisaged as the electric potential drop between M and S, the cell potential difference for system (1) is usually written as the electric potential difference between the two metallic terminals: EMi M1 (3) Since three interfaces are involved in cell (1), eqn.(3) can be rewritten as: E (M{ M) + (M S) + (S Mi) (4) Comparison of eqn. (4) with eqn. (2) shows that the identification of the absolute electrode potential with (M S) is not to be reconmended because it is conceptually misleading. Since M' and M are in electronic equilibrium, then (ref. 3): (4M ) = ('/F pr/F) (5) where the right hand side of eqn. (5) expresses the difference in chemical potential of electrons in the two electrode metals. Substitution of eqn.(5) into eqn.(4) gives: E = (p ii'/F) (E'q p'/F) (6) The two exoressions in brackets do not contain quantities pertaining to the other interfaces. They can thus be defined as single electrode potentials (Note d). Since eqn. (6) has been obtained with the two electrodes assembled into a cell, it is possible that terms common to both electrodes do not appear explicitly in eqn. (6) because they cancel out ultimately. The relationship between the truly absolute electrode potential and the single electrode potential in eqn.(6) can thus be written in the form (Note e) (ref. 5): EM(abs) = EM(r) + K (7) where K is a constant depending on the \"absolute\" reference system, and

Liquid interfaces probed by second-harmonic and sum-frequency spectroscopy

Abstract: A powerful approach to the study of interfaces has been developing rapidly in the past decade. It is based on the spectroscopic methods of second-harmonic (SHG) and sum-frequency generation (SFG). These nonlinear optical techniques, being spectroscopic, provide information at the most fundamental level. A microscopic description of equilibrium and dynamic interface processes requires knowledge of the molecules at the interface, their orientational structure, the energetics that drive chemical and physical processes, and the time scale of molecular motions and relaxation processes. The techniques of second-harmonic and sum-frequency generation have made it possible to selectively probe the chemistry, physics, and biology of gas/liquid, liquid/liquid, liquid/solid, gas/solid, and solid/solid interfaces at the molecular level. In this abbreviated article only liquid interfaces will be considered; gas/solid and solid/solid interfaces are not included. This restriction is necessary because of the enormous increase in SH and SF studies in recent years, which makes it extremely difficult to properly discuss the range of work being carried out around the world. Unfortunately not all of the fine work even in the area of liquid interfaces has been included because of both space and time limitations. A number of review articles are referred to which cover some ofmore » the research material not covered in this article. 99 refs.« less