Self‐Doping and Self‐Acid‐Doping of Conjugated Polymer Bioelectronics: The Case for Accuracy in Nomenclature

Abstract

AbstractConjugated polymers are enabling the development of flexible bioelectronics, largely driven by their organic nature which facilitates modification and tuning to suit a variety of applications. As organic semiconductors, conjugated polymers require a dopant to exhibit electrical conductivity, which in physiological conditions can result in dopant loss and thereby deterioration in electronic properties. To overcome this challenge, “self‐doped” and self‐acid‐doped conjugated polymers having ionized pendant groups covalently bound to their backbone are being developed. The ionized group in a “self‐doped” polymer behaves as the counterion that maintains electroneutrality, while an external dopant is required to induce charge transfer. The ionized group in a self‐acid‐doped polymer induces charge transfer and behaves as the counterion balancing the charges. Despite their doping processes being different, the two terms, self‐doped and self‐acid‐doped, are often used interchangeably in the literature. Here, the differences are highlighted in the doping mechanisms of self‐doped and self‐acid‐doped polymers, and it is proposed that the term “self‐doped” should be replaced by “self‐compensated,” while reserving the term self‐acid‐doped for polymers that are intrinsically doped without the need of an external dopant. This is followed by a summary of examples of self‐acid‐doping in bioelectronics, highlighting their stability in the conductive state under physiological conditions.