Conjugated
organic chromophores composed of linked donor (D) and
acceptor (A) moieties have attracted considerable attention for photoelectrochemical
applications. In this work, we compare the optoelectronic properties
and photoelectrochemical performance of two D–A–D structural
isomers with thiophene-X-carboxylic acid (X denotes 3 and 2 positions) derivatives and 2,1,3-benzothiadiazole
as the D and A moieties, respectively. 5,5′-(Benzo[c][1,2,5]thiadiazole-4,7-diyl)bis(thiophene-3-carboxylic
acid), BTD1, and 5,5′-(benzo[c][1,2,5]thiadiazole-4,7-diyl)bis(thiophene-2-carboxylic acid), BTD2, were employed in the study to understand how structural
isomers affect surface attachments within chromophore–catalyst
assemblies and their influence on charge-transfer dynamics. Crystal
structures revealed that varying the position of the −COOH
anchoring group causes the molecules to either contort out of a plane
(BTD1) or adopt a near-perfect planar conformation (BTD2). BTD1 and BTD2 were co-loaded
with either a water oxidation catalyst, [Ru(2,6-bis(1-methylbenzimidazol-2-yl)pyridine)-(4,4′-((HO)2OPCH2)2-2,2′-bipyridine)(OH2)]2, RuCt
2+
, or proton reduction catalyst [Ni(P2
PhN2
C6H4CH2PO3H2
)2]2+, NiCt
2+
, on oxide electrodes to facilitate photodriven
water splitting reactions. Emission quenching measurements indicate
that both BTD1 and BTD2 inject electrons
into n-type SnO2|TiO2 electrodes and holes into
p-type NiO semiconductors from their respective excited states at
high efficiencies >60%. Photocurrent densities of chromophore–catalyst
assemblies obtained using linear sweep voltammetry (LSV) show that BTD2-sensitized photoanodes generate significantly more photocurrent
than BTD1-sensitized electrodes; however, both exhibit
similar performances at the photocathode. Photoelectrocatyltic measurements
demonstrate that both BTD1 and BTD2 performed
similarly, generating Faradaic efficiencies of 39 and 38% at the anode
or 61 and 79% at the cathode. Transient absorption measurements suggest
that the differences between the LSV and photoelectrocatalytic measurements
result from the differences in quantum yields of the photogenerated
redox equivalents, which is also a reflection of the varying metal
oxide surface conformation. Our findings suggest that BTD2 should be investigated further in photocathodic studies since it
has the structural advantage of being incorporated into diverse types
of chromophore–catalyst assemblies.