“…Notably, slight basic conditions (i.e., the addition of triethylamine or N,N-diisopropylethylamine) can significantly enhance the reaction rate without sacrificing the quality of the as-prepare films. However, few positive results can be obtained from chlorine- and fluorine-substituted aromatic compounds probably due to the higher bond energy of Ar–Cl and Ar–F. ,, After polymerization, all films were characterized by various spectra and exhibited finger peaks: PPP(Br) (FTIR: ∼ 820 cm –1 ; Raman: 1001, 1289, and 1607 cm –1 ), , poly(1,4-nanphthalene) (1,4-PN) (FTIR: 842 and 774 cm –1 ), , poly(1,5-naphthalene) (1,5-PN) (FTIR: 795 and 775 cm –1 ); poly(9,10-anthracene) (9,10-PA) (FTIR: 746 and disappearance of 880 cm –1 ), , poly(2,6-anthracene) (2,6-PA) (FTIR: 885 and 802 cm –1 ), poly(2,7-phenanthrene) (2,7-PPA) (FTIR: 888, 810, and 740 cm –1 ), , poly(2,7-pyrene) (2,7-PPy) (FTIR: 879 and 818 cm –1 ), − 1,3,5-polybenzene (PTBB) (FTIR: ∼887, 756, and 698 cm –1 ; Raman: 1001, 1300, and 1602 cm –1 ), and poly(1,3,5-triphenylbenzene) (PTBPB) (FTIR: 881 and 820 cm –1 ; Raman: 1001, 1346, and 1608 cm –1 ) . Also, the UV–vis absorption of all films has been conducted as shown in Figure : the maximum absorptions are located at 328 nm for PPP(Br), 355 nm for 1,4-PN, 320 nm for 1,5-PN, 391 nm for 9,10-PA, 296 nm for 2,6-PA, 330 nm for 2,7-PPA, 385 nm for 2,7-PPy, 293 nm for PTBB, and 322 nm for PTBPB film, respectively.…”