This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in PHYSICS by Glenn P. Gray December 2010
The Thesis of Glenn P. Gray is approved:
Professor Sue A. Carter, Chair
Professor Joshua Deutsch
Professor David Belanger
Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies
Copyright c by Glenn P. Gray 2010
Table of Contents
List of Figures Abstract Acknowledgments 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 From OLEDs to PHOLEDs . . . . . . . 1.3 Electroluminescence in Matter . . . . . 1.4 Basic OLED Operation and Structure . 1.4.1 Double and Multilayered OLEDs 1.4.2 Single Layer PHOLEDs . . . . . 1.5 OLED Eﬃciencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 Measurements . . . . . . . . . . 2 Experiment 3 Results 4 Conclusion and Next Steps A Preparing the Mix B Preparing the Substrate C Device Fabrication Procedure D Device Characterization Procedure Bibliography
iv vi vii 1 2 3 5 8 10 12 14 18 22 24 29 30 32 34 36 40
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
List of Figures
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Energy level diagram showing the two types of luminescence; ﬂuorescence and phosphorescence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jablonski diagram illustrating the various absorption and emission processes in molecules. Internal conversion (IC) corresponds to nonradiative transitions between states of the same multiplicity, while intersystem crossing (ISC) corresponds to non-radiative transitions between states of diﬀering multiplicity. Figure from reference p.224. Simpliﬁed energy level diagram for single layer OLED showing chargeinjection EL process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) Double layer OLED with the electron transport layer (ETL) as the emissive layer (EML). (b) Double layer device with the hole transport layer (HTL) as the EML. (c) Multilayer device where the EML is a separate layer, not a part of the ETL or HTL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpliﬁed energy level diagram for single layer PHOLED showing charge-injection EL process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illustration of current J and recombination current Jr . . . . . . . . . . Radiometric quantities and their photometric analogs. . . . . . . . . . A graph of the photometric response of the eye superimposed with the visible spectrum. The peak is centered over green, meaning our eyes detect greens better than reds or blues, and we don’t see anything outside the visible spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Photometric responsivity of EG&G UV-100BQ photodiode. . . . . . .
11 12 17 18
Comparison of photocurrent versus voltage for device made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers, and device made with PEDOT:PSS but no LiF interfacial layers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage data for one device tested three times on three diﬀerent days. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage data for best device. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Spectra from device made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers, and just PEDOT:PSS layer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 AFM image of morphology for device made which used 1,2 dichloroethane as the solvent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D.1 Experimental setup for taking spectra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 D.2 Experimental setup for taking current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage curves data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Then we will discuss device characterization and fabrication. In an eﬀort to increase the internal conversion eﬃciency of OLEDs.Abstract Phosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Devices by Glenn P. Gray Organic Light Emitting Devices (OLEDs). and ﬁnally present the results achieved thus far. eliminating the need for additional charge injection aiding layers thus creating a single layered device. Furthermore we will discuss the addition of the ionic salt Bu4 NBF4 and the use of thermo-electric annealing (TE annealing) to aid in charge injection. have emerged as promising alternatives to solid state lighting applications and ﬂat panel displays. First we will motivate the research and explain the physics of device operation. a low molecular weight green emitter. phosphors are added to the active layer and Phosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Devices (PHOLEDs) are made. Here we investigate the fabrication and characterization of PHOLEDs doped with the iridium complex Ir(ppy)3 . .
Jeremy Olson. Last but not least I’d like to thank my family for their love and support. Yvonne Rodriguez. Ben Balaban. Chris France.Acknowledgments First I would like to thank Sue for allowing me to do this research. and Guanmei Zhang. I would also like to thank speciﬁc members of the lab who helped me in one way or another. vii .
The results section covers the progress made so far. Next we will set the stage for the research conducted here by putting it into the context of work done so far. speciﬁcally OLEDs doped with phosphors called PHOLEDs. First we will motivate the research by highlighting some of the novel applications of PHOLEDs.Chapter 1 Introduction Here we present work done on fabricating and characterizing organic light emitting devices (OLEDs). and the conclusion section summarizes the ﬁndings and suggests next steps for continuing the research done here. The introduction is concluded with an explanation of eﬃciencies and measurements used to characterize OLEDs. Then the physics of electroluminescence is explained. 1 See Appendix for detailed step-by-step fabrication and characterization procedures. followed by a review of basic OLED/PHOLED operation and device architectures. The experiment section outlines the procedure for making PHOLEDs1 . 1 .
the color of OLEDs can be tuned by introducing diﬀerent organic dopants. and long lifetimes. In order for OLEDs to be competitive in these markets they must exhibit exceptional brightness. One of the biggest advantages of OLED technology is the ability to deposit the materials onto virtually any substrate such as glass. and transparent. or thin metal foils. or a PDA that can be rolled up and stored in a small space such as a pen. OLEDs are thin ﬁlm devices made either from thermally evaporating small organic molecules (called SMOLEDs). Imagine a TV in your living room that has the thickness of a wall poster and appears to be part of the wall until it is turned on. OLEDs are also scalable.1. and white OLEDs have already been made whose high eﬃciency and low power consumption make them ideal for general solid state lighting applications. meaning they can be made into large area devices such as large area billboards or large area white lights. Also. low operating voltages. or are polymer based (called PLEDs) and solution processable made using wet fabrication techniques such as spin casting. Furthermore. which require low power. resulting in devices that can be made paper thin. plastic.1 Motivation The next generation of ﬂat panel display (FPD) and general solid state lighting applications has arrived with the OLED. helping to reduce en- 2 . strong eﬃciencies. since OLED technology is thin and lightweight it is ideal for applications in portable displays such as cell phones. ﬂexible. and ink-jet printing. doctor blading.
was a double layer device made from layers of aromatic diamine and 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum (Alq3 ). and over the last twenty years new materials. The ﬁrst OLED was reported in 1965 by Helfrich and Schneider and was made from single crystal anthracene. Second to improving eﬃciency in OLEDs has been understanding degradation mechanisms and increasing the lifetime of devices. Here we review some of the work done on OLEDs which have inﬂuenced current device structures and our current understanding. The ﬁrst SMOLED. reported by Tang and VanSlyke in 1987. and dopants have been introduced to increase eﬃciency. OLEDs are made from one or multiple organic layers sandwiched between a transparent anode and a metallic cathode. followed by methods of increasing device lifetime. however they were not very eﬃcient and required high operating voltages due to the thickness of the crystal. which is required for competitiveness in the FPD and lighting industries and which will greatly contribute to understanding device physics.ergy consumption.2 From OLEDs to PHOLEDs Obtaining high eﬃciencies has been the major driving force in OLED re- search and development. which is a major issue in the United States where 20% of electrical energy consumption is used for lighting. sandwiched between a transparent indium tin oxide (ITO) anode and 3 . 1. The trends in the literature show reports of high eﬃciency devices. multilayered devices.
8. of 1%. The second generation PHOLEDs use iridium complexes such as Ir(ppy)3 as the phosphorescent dopant.7. However the internal quantum eﬃciency.12. In phosphorescent devices the internal quantum eﬃciency can reach 100%. These two seminal reports marked the beginning of the OLED research and development boom. In previous works OLEDs relied on the use of ﬂuorescent materials to generate light. in 1990. These devices exhibited a ‘high’ external quantum eﬃciency. 4 .13. is limited to 25% based on spin statistics. which ultimately restricts the external quantum eﬃciency and hence device performance. The ﬁrst PHOLEDs used a platinum doped porphine complex PtOEP2 . The ﬁrst PLED made from the conjugated polymer poly(para-phenylene vinylene) (PPV) was reported by Friend et al. which increases device eﬃciency and hence lowers the current required to achieve a desired brightness.18-octaethyl-21H. The utilization of phosphorescent dopants in OLEDs was the logical next step in increasing the eﬃciency of OLEDs.17. deﬁned as the fraction of photons emitted in the forward viewing direction to injected electrons. deﬁned as the ratio of photons generated within the material to injected electrons. 23H-porphine platinum(II). and had internal and external quantum eﬃciencies of 23% and 4% respectively. and by Hoshino and Suzuki. A major breakthrough in increasing eﬃciency was reached in 1998 by Baldo et al.. which have internal quantum eﬃciencies of almost 2 2.a magnesium-silver alloy cathode. with the introduction of a phosphorescent dopant and the birth of the phosphorescent OLED (PHOLED).3.
3 Electroluminescence in Matter The process of radiative relaxation of molecules at low temperatures is known as luminescence. However there are many forms of luminescence. 4 Luminescence is also known as ‘cold emission’ for this reason. is excited to a higher energy and reemits another photon upon falling back to the ground state.100%. 1. Before explaining the charge-injection EL process it is useful to review the energy structure of electrons in molecules. in which electrons and holes are injected into the luminescent material where they form singlet and triplet excitons. Photoluminescence (PL) is the simplest form in which an electron in a molecule absorbs a photon. and is distinct from incandescence which is a high temperature process4 . Device lifetimes in PHOLEDs have been shown to be inversely proportional to initial brightness which is a typical characteristic of ﬂuorescent OLEDs. 000h have been achieved for green and red PHOLEDs with initial brightness of 600cd/m2 and 300cd/m2 respectively. Here we focus on charge-injection electroluminescence (EL). sonoluminescence. bioluminescence. and mechanoluminescence. The allowed energy levels of an electron in a molecule correspond to sta3 Device lifetime is deﬁned as the amount of time a device takes to degrade from one half of its initial brightness. such as chemiluminescence. which depend on how the molecule was excited before luminescing. which decay to the ground state and emit light. 5 . Devices based on Ir(ppy)3 with external quantum eﬃciencies of greater than 10% and lifetimes3 of greater than 10.
. The two types of emission are called ﬂuorescence for Sn → S0 transitions and phosphorescence for Tn → S0 transitions. States with multiplicity 1 are referred to as singlet states Sn and have total spin angular momentum of 0.tionary states. Sn . meaning the spin of the electron must ﬂip in order to go from a triplet state to a singlet state. . see Fig.1: Energy level diagram showing the two types of luminescence. where the transitions are spin-forbidden. . Using these labels the energy structure of a molecule can be numbered. the spin is conserved from the initial to the ﬁnal state. . Figure 1. and that ﬂuorescence transitions from excited singlet states to the ground state are spin-allowed. . Luminescence occurs when an electron in an excited singlet or triplet state relaxes to the singlet ground state.1. States with multiplicity of 3 are called triplet states Tn and have total spin angular momentum of 1. This is not the case for phosphorescence. and T1 . S1 . from lowest energy to highest energy (starting from the ground state) they are S0 . . . One way to o number these states is to consider their spin multiplicities. T2 . The 6 . . ﬂuorescence and phosphorescence. Tn . 1. It is important to note that normally the ground state is a singlet state. which are represented by the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the molecule’s Hamiltonian found after solving the Schr¨dinger equation.
When the spin-orbit coupling term HSO is added to the molecule’s Hamiltonian and treated as a perturbation. Electrons like to be in their lowest energy state. the new stationary states of the new hamiltonian are mixtures of singlet and triplet states from the old Hamiltonian. nonetheless phosphorescent transitions occur. so electrons singlet states decay rapidly (0. even in the dark. more mixing corresponds to strong spin-orbit coupling. Strictly speaking transitions from triplet states to singlet states are spinforbidden and therefore have zero intensity. 1.consequence of these spin-allowed and spin-forbidden transitions can be explained by the lifetime of the excited states. The reason for this has to do with spin-orbit coupling. transitions between these triplets and singlets (phosphorescence) is possible. while electrons in triplet states can have much longer lifetimes (sometimes greater than 10s) since the transition is spin-forbidden. The phenomena of ﬂuorescence and phosphorescence is most readily illustrated using a Jablonski diagram (Fig. The amount of mixing depends on the strength of the spin-orbit coupling term. once the paint is ‘charged’ (electrons in the material are excited) it can emit light over a long period of time. This is why phosphorescent materials are used in glow-in-the-dark paints. When the spin-orbit coupling term in the Hamiltonian is strong. which shows the diﬀerent processes that 7 . making it possible for some materials with strong spin-orbit coupling to have phosphorescence transitions with the same lifetimes as ﬂuorescence.1 to 1 ns).2). The strength of the spin-orbit coupling also determines the lifetimes of the excited states. resulting in what are called “impure singlet” and “impure triplet” states.
4 Basic OLED Operation and Structure OLEDs are made up of one or multiple thin ﬁlm organic semiconducting layers sandwiched between a metallic cathode and transparent anode. VR .ﬂuorescence. Lifetimes of triplet states and triplet energy transfer have been studied in Alq3 based devices. and (v) light extraction. (ii) charge migration. and must be fast for eﬃcient phosphorescent materials. and the wavy lines correspond to non-radiative processes (IC . 1. The simple structure shown in Fig. The diagram is more detailed than Fig. or undergoes VR and does not emit a photon. 1.1 because it includes vibrational energy levels. P .vibrational relaxation. There are ﬁve processes involved in chargeinjection EL. ISC intersystem crossing). phosphorescence occurs after an electron in an excited singlet state undergoes ISC to an excited triplet state (or one of the higher vibrational levels of that state) after which it phosphoresces.phosphorescence) are shown as straight lines.internal conversion.(i) charge injection.can lead to luminescence in molecules. falling down to the ground state. 1. In the diagram absorption (A) and emission (F .3 illustrates the charge-injection EL process similar to almost all OLEDs. (iv) light emission. The rate of ISC is determined by how much mixing of singlet and triplet states occur due to spin-orbit coupling.2 shows. Electrons and holes are injected from the 8 . (iii) exciton formation. As Fig. which are located above each of the singlet and triplet levels. 1.
Figure from reference p. 9 . Internal conversion (IC) corresponds to non-radiative transitions between states of the same multiplicity.224.Figure 1.2: Jablonski diagram illustrating the various absorption and emission processes in molecules. while intersystem crossing (ISC) corresponds to non-radiative transitions between states of diﬀering multiplicity.
singlet and triplet excitons are formed. Charge transport through the organic material can be characterized by hopping between adjacent molecules.3: Simpliﬁed energy level diagram for single layer OLED showing chargeinjection EL process. and travel through the material in opposite directions. Not all excitons radiatively recombine.1 Double and Multilayered OLEDs As previously mentioned. Double layer devices are made up of an electron transport layer (ETL) 10 . respectively.Figure 1. OLEDs are made up of one or more thin semicon- ducting organic layers sandwiched between a transparent anode (ITO) and a metal cathode.4. If the electron and hole meet on a single molecule. for example in ﬂuorescent OLEDs only 25% of excitons contribute to light generation. and holes and electrons are assumed to recombine and emit light on a speciﬁc molecule . 1. Because the excitons have relatively high binding energies of ∼ 1eV they can travel throughout the material without dissociating. cathode and anode.
electron and/or hole blocking layers are introduced to aid in increasing the recombination current. electrons and holes are injected into the ETL and HTL then meet at the EML to recombine and form excitons. The ETL or the HTL can be doped so that it becomes the emissive layer (EML). which are chosen for their good electron and hole transport and charge injection from the cathode and anode respectively. (c) Multilayer device where the EML is a separate layer. by conﬁning excitons to the EML. followed by luminescence.4 shows device architectures for double and multilayered devices. And devices made with double emission layers 11 .4: (a) Double layer OLED with the electron transport layer (ETL) as the emissive layer (EML). in a double layer device. For example. not a part of the ETL or HTL. (b) Double layer device with the hole transport layer (HTL) as the EML. and hence the charge balance factor.and a hole transport layer (HTL). Multilayer devices incorporate more layers to control and improve device eﬃciency. So. Figure 1. Figure 1.
4. The ETM and HTM are doped polymers with good charge transport characteristics and make up the polymer matrix in which the phosphorescent dye is dispersed. aiding in charge injection. Figure 1. 12 .5: Simpliﬁed energy level diagram for single layer PHOLED showing chargeinjection EL process. interfacial layers between the cathode and ETL and/or anode and HTL are commonly introduced to reduce the charge injection barrier.2 Single Layer PHOLEDs Single layer PHOLEDs are made from a blend of a electron transport mate- rial (ETM).5 shows a diagram of the energy structure of a single layer PHOLED. The phosphorescent dye chosen has fast ISC rates (strong spin-orbit coupling) and has a low molecular weight to aid in the dispersion of the dye into the polymer matrix. and a phosphorescent dye dispersed in a appropriate solvent(s). Furthermore. a hole transport material (HTM).have been shown to be highly eﬃcient. 1. Figure 1.
Park et al.2-dichloroethane and chloroform (3:1 mixing weight ratio) to achieve bright uniform EL. For example PEDOT:PSS5 can be used as the interfacial layer between the anode (ITO) and the organic layer. so using a binary (two-part) solvent is recommended.e.4-ethylenedioxythiophene) :poly(styrene sulfonate) 13 . the choice of the solvent(s) is very important in controlling the morphology of the single layer PHOLED ﬁlm. Solvents with lower boiling points are not ideal for large scale wet deposition techniques such as ink-jet printing. the phase separation of the diﬀerent ingredients of the blend. The addition of the ionic salt tetrabutylammonium tetraﬂuoroborate 5 poly(3. As such. either use interfacial layers between the cathode/organic layers and organic/anode layers.. used a binary solvent of 1. it is useful from an fabrication point of view to choose solvents that have a high boiling point.One of the biggest factors that determines the performance of a single layer PHOLED is the morphology. When choosing a solvent two things must be kept in mind. To lower the charge injection barrier you can do two things. This is diﬃcult to achieve with a one part solvent. First and foremost the solvent must properly dissolve all of the materials. i. which can be characterized by a smooth AFM image of the surface. yields the best devices with the most uniform light emission and highest eﬃciency. A uniform morphology. and lithium ﬂuoride (LiF) can be used as the interfacial layer between the anode (Al) and the organic layer. Secondly. or add a small amount of salt additive and do a thermo-electric (TE) anneal as shown by Park et al.
First the external quantum eﬃciency. The diﬀerence arises from the fact that not all photons generated within the structure of the OLED make it out of the device. The use of heat and electric ﬁeld acts to split the salt into its cation and anion and allow for the adsorption of them toward the cathode and anode respectively.0025 wt. ηext . Once the device lights up the ﬁeld is terminated and it is taken oﬀ the hot plate and cooled. is deﬁned as the ratio of the number of photons emitted by the OLED in the forward viewing direction to the number of electrons injected.5 OLED Eﬃciencies It is important to standardize and deﬁne the diﬀerent measurements used to characterize the luminescence of OLEDs. %. some photons are re-absorbed by the material and some 14 . which is deﬁned as the ratio of the total number of photons generated within the structure of the OLED to the number of electrons injected. The temperature of the anneal is chosen so that it is below the glass transition temperature of the materials used.(Bu4 NBF4 ) and using the TE anneal can also lower the charge injection barriers. % to 0. Here we deﬁne and explain the standard measurements quoted in the literature. This is diﬀerent from the internal quantum eﬃciency ηint . anywhere from 0. It is important that the ﬁeld points in the right direction or the ions will adsorb in the wrong direction. After the devices are made the device is placed on a hot plate and heated to T ◦ C and biased with a voltage V.01 wt. 1. The salt is added in small amounts.
6 (1. A more quantitative description of the internal and external quantum eﬃciencies can be obtained after making a few assumptions. however the rate of intersystem crossing must be taken into account as well as the phosphorescence quantum yield φp . Second.e. First of all. Thirdly we assume that luminescence of the active material has a high ﬂuorescence quantum yield φf . are generated by charge recombination. molecular excited states. most singlet excitons radiatively decay6 .are emitted in a direction other than the forward viewing direction. This means that excitons are generated when a hole from the anode combines with an electron from the cathode to create singlet and triplet excitons. ηc to relate the external and internal quantum eﬃciencies. and all electrons and holes recombine to create excitons which all radiatively decay and are coupled out of the device in the forward direction. so we only need to focus on charges injected from the electrodes. (1.2) The eﬃciencies of PHOLEDs can be explained in a similar way to ﬂuorescent OLEDs. We introduce the light output coupling factor. meaning the material is highly ﬂuorescent (as opposed to phosphorescent). singlet and triplet excitons. ηext = ηc · ηint . 15 . Emission occurs when the singlet or triplet excitons radiatively decay to the ground state. i.1) Note that in a perfect system the same number of electrons and holes are injected. The internal quantum eﬃciency ηint is deﬁned as ηint = γβφf . we assume that no charge is present in the active material without charge injection.
J γ= (1.6). the current that makes it through the device) as Je and Jh . J = Jr then γ = 1. if electrons and holes injected do not form excitons they merely travel through the material and out. The charge balance factor is a measure of the eﬃciency of charge recombination.where γ is the charge balance factor. and they must be contained within the emissive region of the device7 . we can write down expressions for J and Jr (see Fig. In terms of the injected current the charge balance factor is deﬁned as Jr . (1.4) (1. In order to increase the eﬃciency of charge recombination (increase γ) a balance between injected holes and electrons must be obtained.e.3) where Jr is the electron-hole recombination current density.5) If all injected electrons and holes recombine within the emissive layer. and γ < 1 if Je or Jh is non-zero. β is the production eﬃciency of emissive excitations. If we deﬁne the amount of current injected from the cathode and the anode as Je and Jh . 7 16 . and J is the measured current density. In multilayer devices electron blocking and hole blocking layers can be introduced to increase the eﬃciency of charge recombination by aiding in the conﬁnement of injected electrons and holes. and φf is the ﬂuorescence quantum yield. and the amount of current that does not contribute to exciton formation (i. Jr = Jh − Jh = Je − Je . 1. In single layer devices this amounts to adjusting the charge injection barrier at the electrode/organic interface and/or balancing the mobilities of the electrons and holes. J = Jh + Je = Je + Jh .
6: Illustration of current J and recombination current Jr . and φf = 1.7. A typical value for n in OLEDs is 1. Plugging in some numbers gives an estimate of the maximum external quantum eﬃciency of the OLED. χ=1− 1− 1 . but is a useful measure to aid in the understanding of 17 . An estimate of the light output coupling factor χ can be derived from simple ray optics. the maximum ηext = 5.25.0%.Figure 1. However it must be noted that this is not an exact ceiling value for eﬃciencies of OLEDs. and is taken to be π based on simple spin statistics.2.2. Taking χ = 0. n2 (1.6) where n is the index of refraction of the material. giving the frequently used approximation for χ as 0. β = 0. γ = 1. The eﬃciency of the production of emissive excitations β is deﬁned as the branching ratio for singlets and triplets.
while photodetectors can (theoretically) detect the entire spectrum.8).5.7). and hence has units of watts (W). our eyes (see Fig.OLED eﬃciency. 1. The ﬁeld of optical measurements is broken into two sub-ﬁelds. However radiometric quantities are ill-suited for describing the performance of light emitting displays since they do not account for the sensitivity of our personal light detectors. radiometry and photometry. 1. For example an OLED that emits in the UV (or anywhere outside the visible spectrum) will have a measurable radiometric power eﬃciency. Photometric quantities have analog radiometric quantities (see Fig.1 Measurements Next we will deﬁne and explain the standard measurements used to char- acterize OLED performance. These new units in the photometric quantities are the lumen (lm) and the candela (cd). Figure 1. Radiometry deals with the measurement of energy per time. except new units are introduced to account for the sensitivity of our eyes. The need for photometric quantities arises from the fact that our eyes only see light from the visible spectrum.7: Radiometric quantities and their photometric analogs. 1. but zero photometric power eﬃciency. The lumen is deﬁned as the measure of the power of light perceived by 18 .
the lumen can also be deﬁned in terms of the candela. Hence a light source that emits 1 candela uniformly in all directions emits a total of 4π lumens.the human eye. The external quantum eﬃciency ηext is deﬁned as q λIdet (λ)dλ hcf IOLED R(λ)dλ 19 ηext = (1. which has its own photopic responsivity R(λ) that needs to be taken into account. The photocurrent is measured by a photodiode. The second setup involves measuring the current and photocurrent of the device as a function of bias voltage.7) . When testing devices. meaning our eyes detect greens better than reds or blues. two testing setups are needed due to the limitations of the equipment being used. The peak is centered over green.8: A graph of the photometric response of the eye superimposed with the visible spectrum. The ﬁrst measurement setup is used to measure the spectra of the device. Figure 1. 1lm = 1cd·sr. which amounts to biasing the device so that it is turned on and counting the number of photons emitted at each wavelength. and we don’t see anything outside the visible spectrum.
where R(λ) is the photodiode responsivity (shown in Fig. and c is the speed of light. h is Plank’s constant. A is the device area. and IOLED is the current through the OLED. ηP measured in lumens per watt is deﬁned as the ratio of the luminous power emitted in the forward direction 20 . Idet (λ) is the photocurrent from the photodetector. Experimentally. f is the fraction of light emitted from the device to the light coupled into the detector. The luminous power eﬃciency.9).9: Photometric responsivity of EG&G UV-100BQ photodiode.8) where L is the luminance of the OLED (measured in [cd/m2 ]). Figure 1. or luminosity. The luminous eﬃciency ηL is measured in candelas per amp. ηL = AL IOLED (1. 1. and is very similar to ηext except that the luminous eﬃciency takes the photopic response of the eye into account. it is best for the photodetector to be larger in area and as close as possible to the device in order to maximize f . q is the charge of the electron.
9) Alternatively we can deﬁne ηP explicitly in terms of the photopic response of the eye. ηP = LP IOLED V (1.10) where φ0 = 683lm/W is the peak photopic response at λ = 555nm. 21 .LP to the power used by the OLED at a particular voltage. ηP = φ0 g(λ)Idet (λ)/R(λ)dλ f IOLED V (1.
and evaporating an aluminum top electrode. wt. % % % % where the weight percentages are with respect to the solvent.1’biphenyl-4.06 0.2 dichloroethane. and to aid in solubility as Ir(ppy)3 has been shown to have poor solubility in commonly used solvents (such 1 2 N.4-oxadiazole 3 tris(2-phenylpyridinato) iridium 4 Poly(9-vinylcarbazole) 22 .4’-diamine 2-(4-biphenyl)-5-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-1.34 wt.08 0. Speciﬁcally the blend consisted of TPD Bu-PBD Ir(ppy)3 PVK 0. the electron transporting material Bu-PBD2 .Chapter 2 Experiment Green PHOLEDs were fabricated by spincasting a solution of active material onto a glass slide printed with indium tin oxide (ITO). the green emitter Ir(ppy)3 3 .32 0. The active material consisted of a blend of the hole transporting material TPD1 .N’-diphenyl-N. wt. and the hole transporting host material PVK4 in 1. The small amount of Ir(ppy)3 was chosen to prevent concentration quenching. wt.3.N’-bis(3-methylphenyl)-1.
1 and Fig. Spectra.0.as toluene. depositing the materials. D. Procedures for preparing the active blend. tetrahydrofuran.2-dichloroethane). A Single layer devices incorporated 0. The active layer was formed by spincasting 60µL of the blend and vacuum annealing for 30min at 100-110 ◦ C. 23 . and photocurrent versus voltage measurements were taken in the glovebox. chlorobenzene. Typically5 150µL of ﬁltered PEDOT:PSS was spun at 1500rpm and annealed at 100-110 ◦ C for 2030min. 5 The amount and spin speed chosen yielded full coverage of the glass substrate.% Bu4 NBF4 in the active solution and were TE annealed. and 1. The interfacial layer PEDOT:PSS and active material were spun in a fumehood. D. The LiF interfacial layer and aluminum top electrode were evaporated in a vacuum chamber below 2×10−6 T orr at approximately 1˚/sec to achieve thicknesses of 1nm and 50-100nm respectively. and testing devices can be found in the Appendices. see Fig.001 . The TE anneal was performed in the glovebox on a hot plate at 85-95 ◦ C while being sourced by 7V. and annealed in a vacuum oven. current versus voltage. preparing the substrates.005wt.2. Devices incorporated PEDOT:PSS and/or LiF interfacial layers to aid in charge injection into the active layer.
1).06 0. and the spectra for each device was almost identical (see Fig. As expected.4). wt. Two device structures were used to investigate the role of the interfacial layers: ITO/PEDOT:PSS/active material without salt/LiF/Al ITO/PEDOT:PSS/active material without salt/Al The active layer was a mix of TPD Bu-PBD Ir(ppy)3 PVK in 1.34 wt. 3. during testing of the best device O2 levels in the glovebox ﬂuctuated between 6ppm and 100ppm. the turn on voltage for the devices made with both PEDOT and LiF interfacial layers was lower than devices made with only PEDOT (see Fig.08 0. wt.2 dichloroethane. % % % % .Chapter 3 Results The performance of devices made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers were compared. wt. indicating that such ﬂuctuations should not 24 0. On another note.32 0. 3.
3. as was previously thought.3. The JV and PJV data for the best device is shown in Fig. and device made with PEDOT:PSS but no LiF interfacial layers. signiﬁcantly eﬀect device performance. Pixels with bright spots degraded quickly after multiple JV/PJV testing runs.1: Comparison of photocurrent versus voltage for device made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers. all devices that were made worked in one way or another. 3.Figure 3. either the pixel had a uniform glow or there was a very bright spot on the pixel and the rest of the pixel was dim. Finally the turn on voltages for the devices made here were too high. This means that all of the devices emitted light in one of two ways. Furthermore.2. and currents were too high indicating poor eﬃciency. 25 . and the bright spots turned into dark spots after multiple JV/PJV tests. see Fig.
Figure 3. 26 .2: Current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage data for one device tested three times on three diﬀerent days.
Figure 3.4: Spectra from device made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers. 27 . and just PEDOT:PSS layer. Figure 3.3: Current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage data for best device.
however an ideal morphology was not achieved.One explanation for the high power and non-uniform light emission is poor morphology of the ﬁlms. Hence binary solvents with diﬀerent mixing weight ratios were used to improve morphology. 28 . should improve device characteristics. Figure 3.5: AFM image of morphology for device made which used 1. Fig. which has aggregates on the order of a few hundred nanometers. Decreasing the size of these aggregates.5 shows an AFM image of the morphology of the best device.2 dichloroethane as the solvent. As previously stated it is hard to dissolve multiple materials into one solvent. 3. hence improving the morphology.
however they lacked the desired eﬃciency exhibited by devices made in other groups. 29 . optimizing the dispersion of the materials in the blend by choosing and appropriate solvent(s). with the goal of achieving turn on voltages and operating currents comparable to devices made without salt and with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers. Future research should focus on improving the morphology of the ﬁlms. Furthermore. Improving morphology will yield a signiﬁcant improvement in eﬃciency by lowering the currents and voltages required for bright light emission.Chapter 4 Conclusion and Next Steps In conclusion. PHOLEDs made from the iridium complex Ir(ppy)3 were fabricated. once the proper solvent(s) and desired morphology have been found more work can be done on devices made with the salt additive and the TE anneal.
Appendix A Preparing the Mix Preparing the mix of ingredients for the active layer consists of choosing a solvent. putting everything in a vial with a stir-bar. % required can be weighed out on the scale.012g of solvent and TPD Bu-PBD Ir(ppy)3 PVK 4. weighing each component out. so the amount of solvent must be chosen accordingly.01mg 16. and leaving the mix on a stir-plate for 24 hours before making devices. the weight percentages are the same as what is in the Single Layer PHOLED section.03mg 3. the mix used 4ml of 1.253 g/ml. then pipet the 30 .00mg 17. So the mix uses 5.2-dichloroethane. The scale can measure accurately down to about 1mg. calculating how much of each material to use from the weight of the solvent. The amount of solvent is chosen so that the material with the smallest wt.04mg First weigh out the diﬀerent materials and add them to the vial. which has a density of 1. Here is an example.
To make a stock solution. 2 The mix can also be made by making stock solutions for each of the diﬀerent materials. add a stir-bar. % of Bu4 NBF4 . make a stock solution because the scale is not accurate enough to weigh such a small amount of material.which translates into 0. say 0. 1 31 . this method uses less material but requires more bookkeeping. Now the stock solution has a density of 1mg/ml.005 wt.solvent into the vial. and put it on the stir-plate over night1 To add a small amount of salt.say 1mg .25mg of salt. weigh out a small amount of material . one way to check is to hold the vial up to the light and see if there are any materials still ﬂoating around. To add 0.25mg of salt pipet 250µl of the stock solution into the mix2 Leave the mix on the stir-plate long enough so that all the materials can be dissolved.put it in a vial with a stir bar and add 1ml of solvent.
but up to ten can be cleaned at once if they are doubled up in the staining jar1 . Rinse oﬀ slides with de-ionized water. scrape oﬀ old material3 in a petri dish ﬁlled with Alconox. Using a razor blade. three times over the sink 4. for instance the amount of time in each step is variable. place the slides in the staining jar so they are glass-to-glass. A commonly used slide cleaning procedure is as follows2 : 1. 2. and second I can be doing other work while the slides are cleaning 3 If the slides are new this step is unnecessary. 1 32 . Letting the slides sonicate for a long time is advantageous for two reasons: ﬁrst I’m conﬁdent they are clean.Appendix B Preparing the Substrate The ﬁrst thing that needs to be done is clean the ITO coated glass slides. and dispose of waste in the hazardous liquids container in the fumehood. Sonicate in DI H2 O for 30min If you do clean ten at once. 2 Again this cleaning procedure is not hard and fast. Cleaning ﬁve slides at once is common. 4 I usually set the temperature of the sonicator to 40◦ C during the cleaning process. make sure the ITO sides are not touching. DI H2 O. Sonicate in Alconox for 60min4 3.
It is a good idea to turn on the vacuum oven at least 30min before making devices as it takes that long to get to the correct temperature. Using a cotton tipped swab. swab both sides of each slide in a petri dish ﬁlled with ethanol 6.5. 33 . Sonicate in ethanol for 30min 7. Dry slides with ﬁltered nitrogen Now that the slides are clean devices can be made.
Spin down 150µl PEDOT:PSS at 1500rpm1 3. The device fabrication procedure is as follows: 1. Here is the general order of operations. Using clean slides will help. 1 34 . and steps (3) and (4) are done in the evaporation chamber in the glovebox.Appendix C Device Fabrication Procedure The procedure here will include the deposition of PEDOT:PSS and LiF layers. Also the spin speed can be increased or decreased to change the thickness of the diﬀerent layers. there are four basic steps: (1) deposit PEDOT:PSS interfacial layer. (3) evaporate LiF interfacial layer. Filter PEDOT:PSS using 45µm syringe tip ﬁlter. but also use more material if you’re not getting good coverage. Steps (1) and (2) are done at the spinning station in the fumehood. Anneal in the vacuum oven at 100◦ C to 110◦ C for 30min. The important thing here is getting a nice uniform ﬁlm. and (4) evaporate Al top electrode. (2) deposit active layer. 2.
6. Using a cotton tipped swab dipped in ethanol. This means that devices can be made at night and then tested the next morning. clean oﬀ the outer area of the device exposing the ITO pads.5A/s. Spin down 60µl of active material at 1000rpm2 for 45sec. load the devices. ﬁrst transfer the slides to the glovebox and load the slides into the evaporation mask. carefully clean oﬀ the outer edges of the device to expose the ITO pads. Again. If devices are shorting try a thicker layer. for thicker devices reduce the spin speed. Using a cotton tipped swab dipped in ethanol. Now that the top electrode is ready to be evaporated. These devices do not like oxygen. now devices are ready for top electrode evaporation. 7. Then raise the bell jar. and close the bell jar. Then ˚ evaporate 1nm to 10nm of LiF (at about . Now A the devices are made and ready to be tested3 . Anneal in the vacuum oven for 30min at 100◦ C to 110◦ C. put LiF and Al in their boats. but they survived in the glovebox for up to seven days with the O2 concentration between 5ppm and 45ppm. which is advantageous for eﬃciently using alloted time on lab equipment during business hours during the week.4. the slower the deposition rate the more uniform the layer will be). Next evaporate 100nm of Al at about 1˚/s. 5. 3 2 35 .
Figures D.vi program are used. There are two measurement setups. If the pixel lights up the device is ready to be tested. To take spectra of the device the Ocean Optics mini spectrometer and spectrum.Appendix D Device Characterization Procedure The ﬁrst thing to do before you test the devices is see if they work. Set the device holder near the window of the glovebox so that you can see it. and ramp up in steps of 1mA 1 36 . and the other for taking current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage curves. one for taking the spectra of the pixel. then using the Keithely 2400 source with current and measure the voltage. and ramp up the source current while watching for the device to light up1 . so make sure that you pin out to the pixel correctly. hence start at a low current of 1mA. Load the slide into the device holder and pin out to one pixel.1 and D. Remember that these devices only work in forward bias. The basic idea consists of sourcing the device with Devices reported here had high turn on voltages and high currents.2 show the setups for the two measurements.
Figure D. Figure D.1: Experimental setup for taking spectra. 37 .2: Experimental setup for taking current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage curves data.
it allows you to choose what combination of ﬁber size. First turn on the spectrum. spectrum. Use the 600µm ﬁber and the UV-Vis grating. and no sphere. Fix the photodiode to the device tester and pin out to the pixel to be tested. click start and the spectra will appear on the screen.vi (the icon on the desktop says “run spectrum”) is setup to take diﬀerent types of spectra. there is no need to take spectra data for each pixel. using a small allen-head screwdriver and the marking tape. To take JV and PJV curves use the multisweep program (an Igor program) on the left hand side computer2 . Next. and the number of counts can be adjusted by using the ’averaging’ and integration time to increase the signal. Set the 2 Remember. Once the ﬁber holder is attached. Once the spectra of the pixel is taken the JV and PJV curves can be taken for the rest of the device. and integrating sphere. source the pixel of the device that will be used for spectrum data and move the hole in the ﬁber holder over the desired pixel. When ready to take spectra. align and ﬁx the ﬁber holder to the device holder. The pins are connected to the Keithley 2400 source meter and the photodiode is connected to the Keithley 485 picoammeter.vi program gives a plot of the spectrum.enough voltage so that it is very bright and the spectrum. grating.vi program and load the device into the device holder. Then place the Ocean Optics ﬁber into the hole on the ﬁber holder and take the spectrum. visually check to see if the pixel lights up before taking JV/PJV data 38 . Good spectra data counts are in the 3000 range. and also ramp up the source voltage to make the device brighter. Now.
txt).ammeter so that it is on auto-range mode. and ending voltage at the top separated by commas. To set the voltage range create a text ﬁle (for example V in. with the step size. Make sure the GPIB cables from both of the Keithley’s are connected to the left hand side computer. Then specify the ﬁle path where data is to be saved. starting voltage. and tell multisweep where the ﬁle is. 39 . and a name for the data about to be taken. Finally click start and multisweep will take the data. Then click “acquire photocurrent” to measure photocurrent and current versus voltage at the same time.
and M. 1997. Forrest. 4. no.  P. 1995. tunable. P. G. c “Achieving full-color organic light-emitting devices for lightweight. pp. pp. Klessinger and J. R. 1997. Bulovi´. Z. E.” Polymer International. E. vol. Prat. “Threec color.  Z. 2003. 276. 40 . Thompson. Burrows.” Organic Electronics. vol.” IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices. Shen. Forrest. 45–48. 2006. 2009–2011. Michl. V.  B. New York: VCH. Thompson. Excited States and Photochemistry of Organic Molecules.Bibliography  M. E.  S. pp. P. ﬂat-panel displays. R. Burrows. “The road to high eﬃciency organic light emitting devices. 572–582. S. Forrest. “Organic light-emitting diode (oled) technology: Materials. le Roy. 1188– 1202. and M. vol. S. V. Geﬀroy. E. Gu. 44. Shen. 8. and C. pp. devices and display technologies. Bulovic´. R. organic light-emitting devices.” Science.
 J. 1990. 4122–4127. Burroughes.. R. Y. C. “Recombination radiation in anthracene crystals. Forrest. Treacy.” Applied Physics Letters. L. Heeger. 2005. Tang and S. N. 2006. M. Y. Gustafsson. G. 2002. 395. Bradley.s. 347. 88. and S. and T.” Nature. vol. Sun.  A. A. 41 . N. Zhou. CRC Press and The International Society for Optical Engineering. W. pp. pp. R.  L. “Highly eﬃcient phosphorescent emission from organic electroluminescent devices. A. vol.” Nature. “Organic electroluminescent diodes. H. E. Sibley. J. Wu. “The “plastic” led: A ﬂexible light-emitting device using a polyaniline transparent electrode. “U. 539–541.  N. S. Friend.S. B. R. Department of Energy. 1998. 151–154. S. D. Helfrich and W. Duggal. ch. You. F. O’Brien. G. P. 51. Wanga. 1987. Brown. Baldo. R. F. VanSlyke. 1993. 14.” Physical Review Letters. Mackay. pp.” Applied Physics Letters.  M. 1965. N. A. “All-organic active matrix ﬂexible display. Park. C. Marks. Inc. “Light-emitting diodes based on conjugated polymers. J. Cao. Schneider. 913–915. Holmes. D. pp. pp. A. G.” U. K. Jackson.  C. Shoustikov. R. and A. vol. Organic Electroluminescence. A. H.  W. Colaneri. S. vol. Thompson.” Synthetic Metals. Burns. 229–231. Klavetter. Organic Electroluminescent Devices for Solid State Lighting. D. lighting market characterization volume 1: National lighting inventory and energy consumption estimate. M. and A. vol.
Organic Electroluminescence. 69. 4–6. 4. “Polymer phosphorescent light-emitting devices doped with tris(2-phenylpyridine) iridium as a triplet emitter. and S. E. CRC Press and The International Society for Optical Engineering. S. S. pp. pp. S. and K. Baldo.  S. A. vol. M. vol. Forrest. vol.  M. 1999. pp. pp.” Journal of Applied Physics. E. Forrest. “Nearly 100% internal phosphorescence eﬃciency in an organic light emitting device. 14 422–14 428. Lamansky. D. no. R. Tokito. 90. Suzuki. and S. F. O’Brien.” Applied Physics Letters. A. Shirane. 77. Forrest. A. Kamachi. Lee. ch. K. 1996. Thompson.” Applied Physics Letters.  C. 2005. Baldo. R. 2000. Thompson. Lee. vol. pp.  M. R. Hoshino and H. 10. Thompson. 15. 105–111. vol.  M. pp. Baldo. 1999. P. 42 . Adachi. Burrows. E. Baldo. and S. F.  C. 2003. 224–226. 2001. E. Thompson. “Excitonic singlet-triplet ratio in a semiconducting organic thin ﬁlm.” Applied Physics Letters. M. and M. “Electroluminescence from triplet excited states of benzophenone. 60. 2280–2282. B. Organic Electrophosphorescence. 20. M.” Physical Review B. M. Suzuki. no. M. “High-eﬃciency phosphorescent polymer light-emitting devices. M. Forrest. “Very high-eﬃciency green organic light-emitting devices based on electrophosphorescence. no. Kim. no. vol. 5048–5051. and J. Sato. 75. 1.” Organic Electronics.
Organic Electroluminescence. J. 372–376. 162–164. S. 2002. R. and J. Kwong. R. Thompson. Nugent. 10 958–10 966. pp. 2002. ch. Forrest. vol. M. A. Forrest. C. B. L. T. pp. Thompson. Electroluminescence in Small Molecules. M. 1. vol. Kwong. Brown. “Transient analysis of organic electrophosphorescence: I. T. M. Chwang. Tung. S. 904–906.  R. R.  C. M. X. Hack. transient analysis of triplet energy transfer. T. CRC Press and The International 43 . vol. Tsui. and S. M. “High-eﬃciency organic electrophosphorescent devices with tris(2-phenylpyridine)iridium doped into electron-transporting materials. T. pp. S. 6. pp. “Current status of electrophosphorescent device stability. M. M. “High operational stability of electrophosphorescent devices. no. no. Kalinowski.  R. C. 155–164.” IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics.” Physical Review B. Brown. no.” Applied Physics Letters. Zhou. Organic Electroluminescence. vol. Baldo and S. Tung. Forrest. S. R. 81. A. 2003. Weaver.  J. Thompson. and J.  M. Weaver. Baldo. 62. 16. K. Rajan. Zhou. 2005. 2. J. 2000. Y. E.” Applied Physics Letters. M. Hack. and M. Adachi. A. R. Forrest. Adachi. 8. Ngo. Y.” Organic Electronics. pp. E. Lu. “Architectures for eﬃcient electrophosphorescent organic light-emitting devices. 4. CRC Press and The International Society for Optical Engineering. C. Michalski. X. E. 77. M. M. vol. 2000.  T. no.
” Applied Physics Letters. 89. B. H. S. “High-eﬃciency and low-voltage p-i-n electrophosphorescent organic lightemitting diodes with double-emission layers. 2004. A. Y. vol. He. Hofmann. G. 2. Emission Mechanisms in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes. 2006. Choi. Watanabe. Pudzich. pp. Chen. J. Y. Taga. M. Park. “Organic electroluminescent devices with improved stability. Oh. Salbeck. 2004. Suzuki. C. Y. Oh. 3911–3913.  S.  S. and J. Pfeiﬀer. M.” Applied Physics Letters. S. “Highly eﬃcient phosphorescence from organic light-emitting devices with an exciton-block layer. Cho. Saito. S. 17. J. H. T. vol. Kim. J. O.” Applied Physics Letters. and Y. Park. S.  S. Y. Tokito. H. E. and B. H. Seo.  M. W. no. H. Kim. R. Sakamoto. 2160– 2162. and C.” Applied Physics Letters. S. Leo. VanSlyke. W. Kim. 85. Organic Light-Emitting Devices: A Survey. no. 1996. “Highly eﬃcient green phosphorescent single-layered organic light-emitting devices. 69. Ikai. Park. Shinar. Tang. H. S.  J. Birnstock. Park.  G. vol. K. vol. 2005. pp. 2001. ch. “Enhanced light emission from phosphorescent single-layered organic light-emitting devices doped with 44 New York: Springer- . N. Verlag.Society for Optical Engineering. Watanabe. W. D. S. 79. Takezoe. Kang. and J.
X. “Measuring the eﬃciency of organic light-emitting devices.  B. Park. 2476– 2478. 2005. 84. Sun. Yang and D. 2003. 15.” Applied Physics Letters. R. B.” Advanced Materials. and Y. He. and M.” Applied Physics Letters. Y. 2004. “Higheﬃciency polymer electrophosphorescent diodes based on an ir (iii) complex. Xie. 102. 93. C. Lee. pp. D. “Solution processable ionic p-i-n phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes. Bradley. Thompson. vol. 1043– 1048. S. Forrest. H. 13. vol.” Journal of Applied Physics. 87. P. vol. Neher. Xia. H. Oh. 14. 45 . “Polymer electrophosphorescence devices with high power conversion eﬃciencies.  H. Han. C. Wang. Zhang. no. 2008. M. D. no.  X. vol.  S.” Applied Physics Letters. Liu.ionic salt by simultaneous thermal and electrical annealing. J. and S. 2007. E. pp. vol.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.