“…Thee ffective band gap (E gap )i sd etermined by the crossing point between absorption spectra of films and EL spectra of relevant devices ( Figure S13). [44] As shown in Table 1, in contrast to the Rh-OH:PC 71 BM blend with a E gap of 1.83 eV,t he E gap of Rh-PC 71 BM is larger with av alue of 1.91 eV.Notably,the E loss (0.93 eV) of the Rh-PC 71 BM device is lower than that of the Rh-OH:PC 71 BM device which has a E loss E CT of 0.95 eV.Here,byapplying the FTPS signals and Equation (2), we further fitted and calculated the E CT values of 1.55 eV for Rh-PC 71 BM film and 1.45 eV for Rh-OH:PC 71 BM blend, respectively.I ti sf ound that the energy loss for the formation of the CT state (DE 1 )i nt he Rh-PC 71 BM device is 0.36 eV.H owever,t he Rh-OH:PC 71 BM binary device shows a DE 1 of 0.38 eV.The results suggest that the Rh-PC 71 BM device possess efficient exciton dissociation to overcome the exciton binding energy (E b )o ft he D/A moieties of the pristine Rh-PC 71 BM film. In addition, the E loss due to recombination, which consists of radiative recombination (DE 2 )and nonradiative recombination (DE 3 ), exhibits the same value (0.57 eV) in Rh-PC 71 BM and Rh-OH:PC 71 BM devices.N evertheless,t he DE 2 value (0.22 eV) of the Rh-PC 71 BM device,w hich is dependent on the additional radiative recombination below the E gap ,i sh igher than that of the Rh-OH:PC 71 BM binary device (DE 2 = 0.10 eV), indicating that the Rh-OH:PC 71 BM BHJ blend is better for overcoming the Coulomb binding energy of the CT state.The final term of the nonradiative recombination loss (DE 3 )c an be geminate or non-geminate and includes recombination through structural defects or energetic traps,triplet states,and Auger recombination, etc.…”