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
. a low molecular weight green emitter. 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. phosphors are added to the active layer and Phosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Devices (PHOLEDs) are made.Abstract Phosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Devices by Glenn P. Then we will discuss device characterization and fabrication. Gray Organic Light Emitting Devices (OLEDs). In an eﬀort to increase the internal conversion eﬃciency of OLEDs. have emerged as promising alternatives to solid state lighting applications and ﬂat panel displays. eliminating the need for additional charge injection aiding layers thus creating a single layered device. and ﬁnally present the results achieved thus far. Here we investigate the fabrication and characterization of PHOLEDs doped with the iridium complex Ir(ppy)3 . First we will motivate the research and explain the physics of device operation.
I would also like to thank speciﬁc members of the lab who helped me in one way or another. Yvonne Rodriguez. Last but not least I’d like to thank my family for their love and support. Chris France. Ben Balaban.Acknowledgments First I would like to thank Sue for allowing me to do this research. and Guanmei Zhang. Jeremy Olson. vii .
1 See Appendix for detailed step-by-step fabrication and characterization procedures. speciﬁcally OLEDs doped with phosphors called PHOLEDs. The introduction is concluded with an explanation of eﬃciencies and measurements used to characterize OLEDs. Next we will set the stage for the research conducted here by putting it into the context of work done so far.Chapter 1 Introduction Here we present work done on fabricating and characterizing organic light emitting devices (OLEDs). followed by a review of basic OLED/PHOLED operation and device architectures. The experiment section outlines the procedure for making PHOLEDs1 . and the conclusion section summarizes the ﬁndings and suggests next steps for continuing the research done here. First we will motivate the research by highlighting some of the novel applications of PHOLEDs. The results section covers the progress made so far. 1 . Then the physics of electroluminescence is explained.
strong eﬃciencies. 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. doctor blading. OLEDs are also scalable. resulting in devices that can be made paper thin. One of the biggest advantages of OLED technology is the ability to deposit the materials onto virtually any substrate such as glass. which require low power.1. and white OLEDs have already been made whose high eﬃciency and low power consumption make them ideal for general solid state lighting applications. ﬂexible. plastic. In order for OLEDs to be competitive in these markets they must exhibit exceptional brightness.1 Motivation The next generation of ﬂat panel display (FPD) and general solid state lighting applications has arrived with the OLED. and ink-jet printing. helping to reduce en- 2 . the color of OLEDs can be tuned by introducing diﬀerent organic dopants. since OLED technology is thin and lightweight it is ideal for applications in portable displays such as cell phones. or a PDA that can be rolled up and stored in a small space such as a pen. and long lifetimes. Furthermore. and transparent. Also. OLEDs are thin ﬁlm devices made either from thermally evaporating small organic molecules (called SMOLEDs). meaning they can be made into large area devices such as large area billboards or large area white lights. or thin metal foils. low operating voltages. or are polymer based (called PLEDs) and solution processable made using wet fabrication techniques such as spin casting.
2 From OLEDs to PHOLEDs Obtaining high eﬃciencies has been the major driving force in OLED re- search and development. and dopants have been introduced to increase eﬃciency. and over the last twenty years new materials. which is a major issue in the United States where 20% of electrical energy consumption is used for lighting. however they were not very eﬃcient and required high operating voltages due to the thickness of the crystal. followed by methods of increasing device lifetime. OLEDs are made from one or multiple organic layers sandwiched between a transparent anode and a metallic cathode. was a double layer device made from layers of aromatic diamine and 8-hydroxyquinoline aluminum (Alq3 ). 1. The ﬁrst OLED was reported in 1965 by Helfrich and Schneider and was made from single crystal anthracene. which is required for competitiveness in the FPD and lighting industries and which will greatly contribute to understanding device physics. multilayered devices. The trends in the literature show reports of high eﬃciency devices. The ﬁrst SMOLED. sandwiched between a transparent indium tin oxide (ITO) anode and 3 .ergy consumption. Second to improving eﬃciency in OLEDs has been understanding degradation mechanisms and increasing the lifetime of devices. reported by Tang and VanSlyke in 1987. Here we review some of the work done on OLEDs which have inﬂuenced current device structures and our current understanding.
and had internal and external quantum eﬃciencies of 23% and 4% respectively. The utilization of phosphorescent dopants in OLEDs was the logical next step in increasing the eﬃciency of OLEDs. These devices exhibited a ‘high’ external quantum eﬃciency. with the introduction of a phosphorescent dopant and the birth of the phosphorescent OLED (PHOLED). A major breakthrough in increasing eﬃciency was reached in 1998 by Baldo et al. which have internal quantum eﬃciencies of almost 2 2.18-octaethyl-21H. In previous works OLEDs relied on the use of ﬂuorescent materials to generate light. which ultimately restricts the external quantum eﬃciency and hence device performance. 23H-porphine platinum(II). which increases device eﬃciency and hence lowers the current required to achieve a desired brightness.17. in 1990. The ﬁrst PLED made from the conjugated polymer poly(para-phenylene vinylene) (PPV) was reported by Friend et al. These two seminal reports marked the beginning of the OLED research and development boom.8. The ﬁrst PHOLEDs used a platinum doped porphine complex PtOEP2 .a magnesium-silver alloy cathode. 4 . deﬁned as the fraction of photons emitted in the forward viewing direction to injected electrons. is limited to 25% based on spin statistics. In phosphorescent devices the internal quantum eﬃciency can reach 100%. of 1%.12. However the internal quantum eﬃciency.7. deﬁned as the ratio of photons generated within the material to injected electrons. The second generation PHOLEDs use iridium complexes such as Ir(ppy)3 as the phosphorescent dopant. and by Hoshino and Suzuki..3.13.
in which electrons and holes are injected into the luminescent material where they form singlet and triplet excitons. However there are many forms of luminescence. Devices based on Ir(ppy)3 with external quantum eﬃciencies of greater than 10% and lifetimes3 of greater than 10. 000h have been achieved for green and red PHOLEDs with initial brightness of 600cd/m2 and 300cd/m2 respectively. bioluminescence. and mechanoluminescence. Device lifetimes in PHOLEDs have been shown to be inversely proportional to initial brightness which is a typical characteristic of ﬂuorescent OLEDs. Before explaining the charge-injection EL process it is useful to review the energy structure of electrons in molecules. sonoluminescence. which decay to the ground state and emit light.3 Electroluminescence in Matter The process of radiative relaxation of molecules at low temperatures is known as luminescence. Photoluminescence (PL) is the simplest form in which an electron in a molecule absorbs a photon. 4 Luminescence is also known as ‘cold emission’ for this reason. 5 . 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. and is distinct from incandescence which is a high temperature process4 . such as chemiluminescence. 1.100%. which depend on how the molecule was excited before luminescing. Here we focus on charge-injection electroluminescence (EL). is excited to a higher energy and reemits another photon upon falling back to the ground state.
1: Energy level diagram showing the two types of luminescence. The two types of emission are called ﬂuorescence for Sn → S0 transitions and phosphorescence for Tn → S0 transitions. which are represented by the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the molecule’s Hamiltonian found after solving the Schr¨dinger equation. . and that ﬂuorescence transitions from excited singlet states to the ground state are spin-allowed. It is important to note that normally the ground state is a singlet state.tionary states. T2 . see Fig. the spin is conserved from the initial to the ﬁnal state. . States with multiplicity of 3 are called triplet states Tn and have total spin angular momentum of 1. S1 .1. Sn . and T1 . States with multiplicity 1 are referred to as singlet states Sn and have total spin angular momentum of 0. where the transitions are spin-forbidden. The 6 . . meaning the spin of the electron must ﬂip in order to go from a triplet state to a singlet state. This is not the case for phosphorescence. . . 1. . One way to o number these states is to consider their spin multiplicities. from lowest energy to highest energy (starting from the ground state) they are S0 . Tn . ﬂuorescence and phosphorescence. Using these labels the energy structure of a molecule can be numbered. . Luminescence occurs when an electron in an excited singlet or triplet state relaxes to the singlet ground state. Figure 1. .
resulting in what are called “impure singlet” and “impure triplet” states.consequence of these spin-allowed and spin-forbidden transitions can be explained by the lifetime of the excited states. Strictly speaking transitions from triplet states to singlet states are spinforbidden and therefore have zero intensity. once the paint is ‘charged’ (electrons in the material are excited) it can emit light over a long period of time. transitions between these triplets and singlets (phosphorescence) is possible. even in the dark. making it possible for some materials with strong spin-orbit coupling to have phosphorescence transitions with the same lifetimes as ﬂuorescence. Electrons like to be in their lowest energy state. This is why phosphorescent materials are used in glow-in-the-dark paints. so electrons singlet states decay rapidly (0. nonetheless phosphorescent transitions occur. more mixing corresponds to strong spin-orbit coupling.2). When the spin-orbit coupling term in the Hamiltonian is strong. When the spin-orbit coupling term HSO is added to the molecule’s Hamiltonian and treated as a perturbation. the new stationary states of the new hamiltonian are mixtures of singlet and triplet states from the old Hamiltonian.1 to 1 ns). 1. while electrons in triplet states can have much longer lifetimes (sometimes greater than 10s) since the transition is spin-forbidden. The amount of mixing depends on the strength of the spin-orbit coupling term. The reason for this has to do with spin-orbit coupling. The strength of the spin-orbit coupling also determines the lifetimes of the excited states. which shows the diﬀerent processes that 7 . The phenomena of ﬂuorescence and phosphorescence is most readily illustrated using a Jablonski diagram (Fig.
As Fig. The rate of ISC is determined by how much mixing of singlet and triplet states occur due to spin-orbit coupling. and (v) light extraction. (iv) light emission. (iii) exciton formation. The simple structure shown in Fig.can lead to luminescence in molecules.vibrational relaxation. falling down to the ground state. 1.phosphorescence) are shown as straight lines. In the diagram absorption (A) and emission (F . 1.(i) charge injection.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 . 1.internal conversion. 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. 1. There are ﬁve processes involved in chargeinjection EL. and must be fast for eﬃcient phosphorescent materials.1 because it includes vibrational energy levels. (ii) charge migration. Lifetimes of triplet states and triplet energy transfer have been studied in Alq3 based devices.3 illustrates the charge-injection EL process similar to almost all OLEDs. which are located above each of the singlet and triplet levels.2 shows. or undergoes VR and does not emit a photon. ISC intersystem crossing). P .ﬂuorescence. The diagram is more detailed than Fig. and the wavy lines correspond to non-radiative processes (IC . Electrons and holes are injected from the 8 .
Internal conversion (IC) corresponds to non-radiative transitions between states of the same multiplicity. while intersystem crossing (ISC) corresponds to non-radiative transitions between states of diﬀering multiplicity.2: Jablonski diagram illustrating the various absorption and emission processes in molecules.Figure 1. 9 . Figure from reference p.224.
singlet and triplet excitons are formed. Because the excitons have relatively high binding energies of ∼ 1eV they can travel throughout the material without dissociating. 1. Charge transport through the organic material can be characterized by hopping between adjacent molecules.1 Double and Multilayered OLEDs As previously mentioned. respectively. If the electron and hole meet on a single molecule. cathode and anode. and holes and electrons are assumed to recombine and emit light on a speciﬁc molecule . Double layer devices are made up of an electron transport layer (ETL) 10 . OLEDs are made up of one or more thin semicon- ducting organic layers sandwiched between a transparent anode (ITO) and a metal cathode. for example in ﬂuorescent OLEDs only 25% of excitons contribute to light generation.Figure 1. Not all excitons radiatively recombine. and travel through the material in opposite directions.4.3: Simpliﬁed energy level diagram for single layer OLED showing chargeinjection EL process.
followed by luminescence. by conﬁning excitons to the EML. (b) Double layer device with the hole transport layer (HTL) as the EML. and hence the charge balance factor. Figure 1. Figure 1. in a double layer device. For example.4 shows device architectures for double and multilayered devices.and a hole transport layer (HTL).4: (a) Double layer OLED with the electron transport layer (ETL) as the emissive layer (EML). The ETL or the HTL can be doped so that it becomes the emissive layer (EML). (c) Multilayer device where the EML is a separate layer. Multilayer devices incorporate more layers to control and improve device eﬃciency. So. which are chosen for their good electron and hole transport and charge injection from the cathode and anode respectively. electrons and holes are injected into the ETL and HTL then meet at the EML to recombine and form excitons. And devices made with double emission layers 11 . electron and/or hole blocking layers are introduced to aid in increasing the recombination current. not a part of the ETL or HTL.
have been shown to be highly eﬃcient. 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. Furthermore. Figure 1. and a phosphorescent dye dispersed in a appropriate solvent(s).5 shows a diagram of the energy structure of a single layer PHOLED.2 Single Layer PHOLEDs Single layer PHOLEDs are made from a blend of a electron transport mate- rial (ETM). interfacial layers between the cathode and ETL and/or anode and HTL are commonly introduced to reduce the charge injection barrier. Figure 1. 12 . a hole transport material (HTM).4. 1. aiding in charge injection.5: Simpliﬁed energy level diagram for single layer PHOLED showing chargeinjection EL process. 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.
the choice of the solvent(s) is very important in controlling the morphology of the single layer PHOLED ﬁlm. This is diﬃcult to achieve with a one part solvent. For example PEDOT:PSS5 can be used as the interfacial layer between the anode (ITO) and the organic layer. When choosing a solvent two things must be kept in mind. i. As such.e. First and foremost the solvent must properly dissolve all of the materials. To lower the charge injection barrier you can do two things. it is useful from an fabrication point of view to choose solvents that have a high boiling point. Park et al.2-dichloroethane and chloroform (3:1 mixing weight ratio) to achieve bright uniform EL. yields the best devices with the most uniform light emission and highest eﬃciency.4-ethylenedioxythiophene) :poly(styrene sulfonate) 13 . the phase separation of the diﬀerent ingredients of the blend. A uniform morphology. which can be characterized by a smooth AFM image of the surface. so using a binary (two-part) solvent is recommended. used a binary solvent of 1. Secondly. or add a small amount of salt additive and do a thermo-electric (TE) anneal as shown by Park et al.. either use interfacial layers between the cathode/organic layers and organic/anode layers. and lithium ﬂuoride (LiF) can be used as the interfacial layer between the anode (Al) and the organic layer. The addition of the ionic salt tetrabutylammonium tetraﬂuoroborate 5 poly(3.One of the biggest factors that determines the performance of a single layer PHOLED is the morphology. Solvents with lower boiling points are not ideal for large scale wet deposition techniques such as ink-jet printing.
After the devices are made the device is placed on a hot plate and heated to T ◦ C and biased with a voltage V. ηext .01 wt. 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. First the external quantum eﬃciency. %. Once the device lights up the ﬁeld is terminated and it is taken oﬀ the hot plate and cooled. This is diﬀerent from the internal quantum eﬃciency ηint . 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. 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. 1. % to 0.0025 wt.(Bu4 NBF4 ) and using the TE anneal can also lower the charge injection barriers. some photons are re-absorbed by the material and some 14 . Here we deﬁne and explain the standard measurements quoted in the literature. The temperature of the anneal is chosen so that it is below the glass transition temperature of the materials used. The salt is added in small amounts. anywhere from 0. The diﬀerence arises from the fact that not all photons generated within the structure of the OLED make it out of the device. It is important that the ﬁeld points in the right direction or the ions will adsorb in the wrong direction.
however the rate of intersystem crossing must be taken into account as well as the phosphorescence quantum yield φp . Second. ηext = ηc · ηint . 15 . i.1) Note that in a perfect system the same number of electrons and holes are injected. A more quantitative description of the internal and external quantum eﬃciencies can be obtained after making a few assumptions. we assume that no charge is present in the active material without charge injection. and all electrons and holes recombine to create excitons which all radiatively decay and are coupled out of the device in the forward direction.e. are generated by charge recombination. ηc to relate the external and internal quantum eﬃciencies. 6 (1. We introduce the light output coupling factor. Thirdly we assume that luminescence of the active material has a high ﬂuorescence quantum yield φf . meaning the material is highly ﬂuorescent (as opposed to phosphorescent). Emission occurs when the singlet or triplet excitons radiatively decay to the ground state. (1. molecular excited states. most singlet excitons radiatively decay6 . so we only need to focus on charges injected from the electrodes. First of all. singlet and triplet excitons. The internal quantum eﬃciency ηint is deﬁned as ηint = γβφf . 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.2) The eﬃciencies of PHOLEDs can be explained in a similar way to ﬂuorescent OLEDs.are emitted in a direction other than the forward viewing direction.
If we deﬁne the amount of current injected from the cathode and the anode as Je and Jh .5) If all injected electrons and holes recombine within the emissive layer.4) (1.3) where Jr is the electron-hole recombination current density.6). and φf is the ﬂuorescence quantum yield. J = Jh + Je = Je + Jh . and J is the measured current density. 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. we can write down expressions for J and Jr (see Fig. The charge balance factor is a measure of the eﬃciency of charge recombination. 1. if electrons and holes injected do not form excitons they merely travel through the material and out.where γ is the charge balance factor. and the amount of current that does not contribute to exciton formation (i. the current that makes it through the device) as Je and Jh . and γ < 1 if Je or Jh is non-zero. 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 they must be contained within the emissive region of the device7 . J = Jr then γ = 1. Jr = Jh − Jh = Je − Je . In order to increase the eﬃciency of charge recombination (increase γ) a balance between injected holes and electrons must be obtained. β is the production eﬃciency of emissive excitations. In terms of the injected current the charge balance factor is deﬁned as Jr . J γ= (1. 7 16 . (1.e.
25. Taking χ = 0.2. and is taken to be π based on simple spin statistics.0%.Figure 1. giving the frequently used approximation for χ as 0.6) where n is the index of refraction of the material. However it must be noted that this is not an exact ceiling value for eﬃciencies of OLEDs. the maximum ηext = 5.2. Plugging in some numbers gives an estimate of the maximum external quantum eﬃciency of the OLED. and φf = 1. The eﬃciency of the production of emissive excitations β is deﬁned as the branching ratio for singlets and triplets. but is a useful measure to aid in the understanding of 17 . β = 0. A typical value for n in OLEDs is 1. χ=1− 1− 1 . An estimate of the light output coupling factor χ can be derived from simple ray optics.7. n2 (1. γ = 1.6: Illustration of current J and recombination current Jr .
1 Measurements Next we will deﬁne and explain the standard measurements used to char- acterize OLED performance. The ﬁeld of optical measurements is broken into two sub-ﬁelds. and hence has units of watts (W).8). Radiometry deals with the measurement of energy per time. 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. except new units are introduced to account for the sensitivity of our eyes. radiometry and photometry.5. 1. For example an OLED that emits in the UV (or anywhere outside the visible spectrum) will have a measurable radiometric power eﬃciency. 1. The need for photometric quantities arises from the fact that our eyes only see light from the visible spectrum. but zero photometric power eﬃciency. Photometric quantities have analog radiometric quantities (see Fig. our eyes (see Fig. These new units in the photometric quantities are the lumen (lm) and the candela (cd). 1. Figure 1.OLED eﬃciency.7: Radiometric quantities and their photometric analogs.7). The lumen is deﬁned as the measure of the power of light perceived by 18 . while photodetectors can (theoretically) detect the entire spectrum.
The ﬁrst measurement setup is used to measure the spectra of the device. Hence a light source that emits 1 candela uniformly in all directions emits a total of 4π lumens. The peak is centered over green.8: A graph of the photometric response of the eye superimposed with the visible spectrum. the lumen can also be deﬁned in terms of the candela. The external quantum eﬃciency ηext is deﬁned as q λIdet (λ)dλ hcf IOLED R(λ)dλ 19 ηext = (1. and we don’t see anything outside the visible spectrum. which has its own photopic responsivity R(λ) that needs to be taken into account. meaning our eyes detect greens better than reds or blues. When testing devices. The second setup involves measuring the current and photocurrent of the device as a function of bias voltage.the human eye. which amounts to biasing the device so that it is turned on and counting the number of photons emitted at each wavelength. Figure 1. The photocurrent is measured by a photodiode.7) . two testing setups are needed due to the limitations of the equipment being used. 1lm = 1cd·sr.
and IOLED is the current through the OLED.9). The luminous eﬃciency ηL is measured in candelas per amp. it is best for the photodetector to be larger in area and as close as possible to the device in order to maximize f . f is the fraction of light emitted from the device to the light coupled into the detector. The luminous power eﬃciency. 1.8) where L is the luminance of the OLED (measured in [cd/m2 ]).where R(λ) is the photodiode responsivity (shown in Fig. or luminosity. h is Plank’s constant. Idet (λ) is the photocurrent from the photodetector. q is the charge of the electron. Figure 1. ηP measured in lumens per watt is deﬁned as the ratio of the luminous power emitted in the forward direction 20 .9: Photometric responsivity of EG&G UV-100BQ photodiode. and is very similar to ηext except that the luminous eﬃciency takes the photopic response of the eye into account. and c is the speed of light. A is the device area. Experimentally. ηL = AL IOLED (1.
10) where φ0 = 683lm/W is the peak photopic response at λ = 555nm.LP to the power used by the OLED at a particular voltage. ηP = LP IOLED V (1. ηP = φ0 g(λ)Idet (λ)/R(λ)dλ f IOLED V (1.9) Alternatively we can deﬁne ηP explicitly in terms of the photopic response of the eye. 21 .
34 wt.4’-diamine 2-(4-biphenyl)-5-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-1.08 0.2 dichloroethane. % % % % where the weight percentages are with respect to the solvent. wt. The small amount of Ir(ppy)3 was chosen to prevent concentration quenching.N’-bis(3-methylphenyl)-1.32 0.Chapter 2 Experiment Green PHOLEDs were fabricated by spincasting a solution of active material onto a glass slide printed with indium tin oxide (ITO). and evaporating an aluminum top electrode.N’-diphenyl-N. the green emitter Ir(ppy)3 3 . wt. Speciﬁcally the blend consisted of TPD Bu-PBD Ir(ppy)3 PVK 0.3.06 0.1’biphenyl-4. and to aid in solubility as Ir(ppy)3 has been shown to have poor solubility in commonly used solvents (such 1 2 N. the electron transporting material Bu-PBD2 . wt. The active material consisted of a blend of the hole transporting material TPD1 . and the hole transporting host material PVK4 in 1.4-oxadiazole 3 tris(2-phenylpyridinato) iridium 4 Poly(9-vinylcarbazole) 22 .
Typically5 150µL of ﬁltered PEDOT:PSS was spun at 1500rpm and annealed at 100-110 ◦ C for 2030min. current versus voltage. and annealed in a vacuum oven. A Single layer devices incorporated 0. Devices incorporated PEDOT:PSS and/or LiF interfacial layers to aid in charge injection into the active layer. preparing the substrates.005wt. The interfacial layer PEDOT:PSS and active material were spun in a fumehood.001 . and photocurrent versus voltage measurements were taken in the glovebox. see Fig. 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.2. D.as toluene.2-dichloroethane). and testing devices can be found in the Appendices. D. The TE anneal was performed in the glovebox on a hot plate at 85-95 ◦ C while being sourced by 7V. 5 The amount and spin speed chosen yielded full coverage of the glass substrate. 23 .1 and Fig. depositing the materials. chlorobenzene. and 1.0. Procedures for preparing the active blend. tetrahydrofuran.% Bu4 NBF4 in the active solution and were TE annealed. Spectra. The active layer was formed by spincasting 60µL of the blend and vacuum annealing for 30min at 100-110 ◦ C.
wt. 3. 3. 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.Chapter 3 Results The performance of devices made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers were compared. wt.06 0.34 wt.4). On another note.1). and the spectra for each device was almost identical (see Fig. wt. As expected. indicating that such ﬂuctuations should not 24 0. 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. % % % % .2 dichloroethane.32 0.08 0. during testing of the best device O2 levels in the glovebox ﬂuctuated between 6ppm and 100ppm.
and currents were too high indicating poor eﬃciency. 3.1: Comparison of photocurrent versus voltage for device made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers. Pixels with bright spots degraded quickly after multiple JV/PJV testing runs. and device made with PEDOT:PSS but no LiF interfacial layers. and the bright spots turned into dark spots after multiple JV/PJV tests.3. as was previously thought. 3. The JV and PJV data for the best device is shown in Fig. 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. see Fig. all devices that were made worked in one way or another. This means that all of the devices emitted light in one of two ways. Furthermore. 25 .Figure 3.2. Finally the turn on voltages for the devices made here were too high. signiﬁcantly eﬀect device performance.
26 .Figure 3.2: Current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage data for one device tested three times on three diﬀerent days.
and just PEDOT:PSS layer. 27 .3: Current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage data for best device.4: Spectra from device made with PEDOT:PSS and LiF interfacial layers.Figure 3. Figure 3.
which has aggregates on the order of a few hundred nanometers.2 dichloroethane as the solvent.5: AFM image of morphology for device made which used 1. Figure 3. Decreasing the size of these aggregates. however an ideal morphology was not achieved. 28 . Hence binary solvents with diﬀerent mixing weight ratios were used to improve morphology. hence improving the morphology.5 shows an AFM image of the morphology of the best device. should improve device characteristics.One explanation for the high power and non-uniform light emission is poor morphology of the ﬁlms. 3. Fig. As previously stated it is hard to dissolve multiple materials into one solvent.
PHOLEDs made from the iridium complex Ir(ppy)3 were fabricated. 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.Chapter 4 Conclusion and Next Steps In conclusion. 29 . 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. Future research should focus on improving the morphology of the ﬁlms. however they lacked the desired eﬃciency exhibited by devices made in other groups. Improving morphology will yield a signiﬁcant improvement in eﬃciency by lowering the currents and voltages required for bright light emission. optimizing the dispersion of the materials in the blend by choosing and appropriate solvent(s). Furthermore.
01mg 16.253 g/ml. The amount of solvent is chosen so that the material with the smallest wt. which has a density of 1. putting everything in a vial with a stir-bar. So the mix uses 5. the mix used 4ml of 1.03mg 3. calculating how much of each material to use from the weight of the solvent. % required can be weighed out on the scale. The scale can measure accurately down to about 1mg. and leaving the mix on a stir-plate for 24 hours before making devices. Here is an example.2-dichloroethane. so the amount of solvent must be chosen accordingly. the weight percentages are the same as what is in the Single Layer PHOLED section.Appendix A Preparing the Mix Preparing the mix of ingredients for the active layer consists of choosing a solvent. weighing each component out.012g of solvent and TPD Bu-PBD Ir(ppy)3 PVK 4.04mg First weigh out the diﬀerent materials and add them to the vial.00mg 17. then pipet the 30 .
1 31 . Now the stock solution has a density of 1mg/ml. % of Bu4 NBF4 .solvent into the vial. add a stir-bar. say 0. 2 The mix can also be made by making stock solutions for each of the diﬀerent materials.put it in a vial with a stir bar and add 1ml of solvent.005 wt. make a stock solution because the scale is not accurate enough to weigh such a small amount of material. To add 0.25mg of salt. weigh out a small amount of material .which translates into 0. To make a stock solution.say 1mg .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. one way to check is to hold the vial up to the light and see if there are any materials still ﬂoating around. this method uses less material but requires more bookkeeping. and put it on the stir-plate over night1 To add a small amount of salt.
Sonicate in DI H2 O for 30min If you do clean ten at once. Rinse oﬀ slides with de-ionized water. scrape oﬀ old material3 in a petri dish ﬁlled with Alconox. A commonly used slide cleaning procedure is as follows2 : 1. Cleaning ﬁve slides at once is common. Sonicate in Alconox for 60min4 3. Using a razor blade. but up to ten can be cleaned at once if they are doubled up in the staining jar1 . 1 32 . 2 Again this cleaning procedure is not hard and fast. for instance the amount of time in each step is variable. three times over the sink 4. place the slides in the staining jar so they are glass-to-glass. and second I can be doing other work while the slides are cleaning 3 If the slides are new this step is unnecessary.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. Letting the slides sonicate for a long time is advantageous for two reasons: ﬁrst I’m conﬁdent they are clean. DI H2 O. 4 I usually set the temperature of the sonicator to 40◦ C during the cleaning process. 2. make sure the ITO sides are not touching.
Sonicate in ethanol for 30min 7. swab both sides of each slide in a petri dish ﬁlled with ethanol 6. 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. Dry slides with ﬁltered nitrogen Now that the slides are clean devices can be made.5. 33 . Using a cotton tipped swab.
Also the spin speed can be increased or decreased to change the thickness of the diﬀerent layers. Here is the general order of operations. there are four basic steps: (1) deposit PEDOT:PSS interfacial layer. Using clean slides will help. Anneal in the vacuum oven at 100◦ C to 110◦ C for 30min. Spin down 150µl PEDOT:PSS at 1500rpm1 3. (3) evaporate LiF interfacial layer. 1 34 . The important thing here is getting a nice uniform ﬁlm. and (4) evaporate Al top electrode. Steps (1) and (2) are done at the spinning station in the fumehood.Appendix C Device Fabrication Procedure The procedure here will include the deposition of PEDOT:PSS and LiF layers. but also use more material if you’re not getting good coverage. 2. The device fabrication procedure is as follows: 1. Filter PEDOT:PSS using 45µm syringe tip ﬁlter. (2) deposit active layer. and steps (3) and (4) are done in the evaporation chamber in the glovebox.
If devices are shorting try a thicker layer. put LiF and Al in their boats. Now A the devices are made and ready to be tested3 . but they survived in the glovebox for up to seven days with the O2 concentration between 5ppm and 45ppm. carefully clean oﬀ the outer edges of the device to expose the ITO pads. 5. load the devices. Anneal in the vacuum oven for 30min at 100◦ C to 110◦ C. Using a cotton tipped swab dipped in ethanol. This means that devices can be made at night and then tested the next morning. the slower the deposition rate the more uniform the layer will be). 3 2 35 .5A/s. Next evaporate 100nm of Al at about 1˚/s. Then raise the bell jar. for thicker devices reduce the spin speed. ﬁrst transfer the slides to the glovebox and load the slides into the evaporation mask. Spin down 60µl of active material at 1000rpm2 for 45sec. 7. now devices are ready for top electrode evaporation. Then ˚ evaporate 1nm to 10nm of LiF (at about . which is advantageous for eﬃciently using alloted time on lab equipment during business hours during the week.4. Now that the top electrode is ready to be evaporated. clean oﬀ the outer area of the device exposing the ITO pads. Using a cotton tipped swab dipped in ethanol. These devices do not like oxygen. Again. 6. and close the bell jar.
and the other for taking current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage curves. To take spectra of the device the Ocean Optics mini spectrometer and spectrum. then using the Keithely 2400 source with current and measure the voltage.1 and D.2 show the setups for the two measurements. hence start at a low current of 1mA.Appendix D Device Characterization Procedure The ﬁrst thing to do before you test the devices is see if they work. There are two measurement setups. Set the device holder near the window of the glovebox so that you can see it. and ramp up the source current while watching for the device to light up1 . The basic idea consists of sourcing the device with Devices reported here had high turn on voltages and high currents. Load the slide into the device holder and pin out to one pixel. If the pixel lights up the device is ready to be tested. Figures D. so make sure that you pin out to the pixel correctly. one for taking the spectra of the pixel. Remember that these devices only work in forward bias.vi program are used. and ramp up in steps of 1mA 1 36 .
2: Experimental setup for taking current versus voltage and photocurrent versus voltage curves data.1: Experimental setup for taking spectra.Figure D. Figure D. 37 .
vi program and load the device into the device holder. and the number of counts can be adjusted by using the ’averaging’ and integration time to increase the signal.enough voltage so that it is very bright and the spectrum. The pins are connected to the Keithley 2400 source meter and the photodiode is connected to the Keithley 485 picoammeter. Then place the Ocean Optics ﬁber into the hole on the ﬁber holder and take the spectrum. align and ﬁx the ﬁber holder to the device holder. Good spectra data counts are in the 3000 range. Use the 600µm ﬁber and the UV-Vis grating. grating. visually check to see if the pixel lights up before taking JV/PJV data 38 . and no sphere. and integrating sphere. Once the spectra of the pixel is taken the JV and PJV curves can be taken for the rest of the device. there is no need to take spectra data for each pixel.vi (the icon on the desktop says “run spectrum”) is setup to take diﬀerent types of spectra.vi program gives a plot of the spectrum. click start and the spectra will appear on the screen. using a small allen-head screwdriver and the marking tape. it allows you to choose what combination of ﬁber size. Next. When ready to take spectra. spectrum. First turn on the spectrum. Fix the photodiode to the device tester and pin out to the pixel to be tested. Set the 2 Remember. Now. Once the ﬁber holder is attached. 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. To take JV and PJV curves use the multisweep program (an Igor program) on the left hand side computer2 . and also ramp up the source voltage to make the device brighter.
ammeter so that it is on auto-range mode. and ending voltage at the top separated by commas. with the step size. Finally click start and multisweep will take the data. To set the voltage range create a text ﬁle (for example V in. Then specify the ﬁle path where data is to be saved. starting voltage. Then click “acquire photocurrent” to measure photocurrent and current versus voltage at the same time. Make sure the GPIB cables from both of the Keithley’s are connected to the left hand side computer.txt). and a name for the data about to be taken. 39 . and tell multisweep where the ﬁle is.
tunable. 1997. pp. P. S. E. 572–582. New York: VCH. vol. and M.  S. E. Shen. S. Forrest. c “Achieving full-color organic light-emitting devices for lightweight.” IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices. 40 . Klessinger and J. 1997. no. Thompson. Gu. 2003. le Roy. 2006. Bulovic´. “The road to high eﬃciency organic light emitting devices. R. pp.” Organic Electronics. organic light-emitting devices. Excited States and Photochemistry of Organic Molecules. Prat. 8.  B.” Polymer International. Burrows. and M. G.  Z. V. pp. and C. Shen. devices and display technologies. Geﬀroy. Bulovi´. pp. 45–48. ﬂat-panel displays. Burrows.” Science. “Organic light-emitting diode (oled) technology: Materials. E. 1995. E. Forrest. R. vol. 2009–2011. Michl. 44. vol.Bibliography  M. R. V. Thompson. 276. Z. Forrest. P. “Threec color.  P. 4. 1188– 1202.
51.S. CRC Press and The International Society for Optical Engineering. vol. Organic Electroluminescence. A. 2002. pp. Helfrich and W. R. “U. Tang and S. G. pp. Burns. Forrest.  L. 14. Department of Energy. N. 1987. “All-organic active matrix ﬂexible display. Burroughes.” Applied Physics Letters. B.  C. vol. Y. Klavetter. Schneider. W. D. “Light-emitting diodes based on conjugated polymers. F.” Nature.  N. R. 395. Cao. Sibley. G. 4122–4127. C. J. You. Heeger. Colaneri. D.” U. Shoustikov. D. Brown. VanSlyke. Treacy.” Physical Review Letters. A. H. R.  W. 913–915. and A. H.  J. Holmes.s. Y. Marks. P. 1965.  M. Zhou. Wu. N.. 347. Jackson. Bradley. and A. 1990. Wanga. Inc. S. G. F. J.” Synthetic Metals. N. 88. R. ch. A. M. “Highly eﬃcient phosphorescent emission from organic electroluminescent devices. E. lighting market characterization volume 1: National lighting inventory and energy consumption estimate. and S.” Applied Physics Letters. pp. Park. O’Brien. S. Duggal. “The “plastic” led: A ﬂexible light-emitting device using a polyaniline transparent electrode.  A. and T. pp. Organic Electroluminescent Devices for Solid State Lighting. vol. “Organic electroluminescent diodes.” Nature. 41 . vol. vol. M. C. A. 1993. A. Friend. “Recombination radiation in anthracene crystals. L. R. 229–231. Gustafsson. 1998. Mackay. Baldo. 539–541. K. S. 151–154. 2005. pp. 2006. Thompson. Sun.
Forrest. vol. pp. “Very high-eﬃciency green organic light-emitting devices based on electrophosphorescence. M. “Excitonic singlet-triplet ratio in a semiconducting organic thin ﬁlm. F. Organic Electrophosphorescence. no. no. pp. 10. Burrows. 14 422–14 428. Kim. pp. K. vol. A. 60. Baldo. 1996. 15. E. Kamachi. M. 1999. M. and S. pp.  C. Baldo. Organic Electroluminescence. Suzuki. S. Lee. A. vol. 4. Shirane.  C. “High-eﬃciency phosphorescent polymer light-emitting devices. E. 90. Adachi. and S. E. Baldo. Thompson.  M. and J. M. and S.” Physical Review B. O’Brien. Forrest. R. 224–226. no. Lee. “Nearly 100% internal phosphorescence eﬃciency in an organic light emitting device. D. vol.” Organic Electronics. Sato. F. Forrest. and K. 2280–2282. 4–6. ch. Thompson. Baldo. M. E.” Applied Physics Letters. Hoshino and H. Forrest. 1999. 2000. M. CRC Press and The International Society for Optical Engineering.  S.  M. pp. 1. 69. 2005. 75. B. vol. 105–111. “Polymer phosphorescent light-emitting devices doped with tris(2-phenylpyridine) iridium as a triplet emitter. R. R. Tokito. 20. A. 2003.” Applied Physics Letters.” Journal of Applied Physics. S. and M.  M. “Electroluminescence from triplet excited states of benzophenone. P. Thompson. no. vol. 77. Suzuki. 42 . 5048–5051. S.” Applied Physics Letters. pp. Lamansky. 2001. Thompson.
pp. Tung. B. Y. vol. Hack. Tung. Zhou.” Organic Electronics. and M. M. no. A.” Applied Physics Letters. 904–906. E. 16. 2. Lu. Thompson. 4. vol. Adachi. R. C. M. M. K. 81. pp.  M. 2003. X. R. M. 372–376. Brown. S. E. Kwong. M. T.  J. “Transient analysis of organic electrophosphorescence: I. R. Forrest. Electroluminescence in Small Molecules. S. Forrest. Brown. M. 1. and J. Nugent. Ngo. transient analysis of triplet energy transfer. 2000.” Physical Review B. M. T. Chwang. Kwong. Baldo and S. 77. J. “High operational stability of electrophosphorescent devices. M. no. Weaver. vol. “High-eﬃciency organic electrophosphorescent devices with tris(2-phenylpyridine)iridium doped into electron-transporting materials.  T. pp. Baldo. Forrest. 10 958–10 966. T. Michalski.” Applied Physics Letters. 2002. X. S. Thompson. R. R. Hack. E. T. “Current status of electrophosphorescent device stability. J. A. pp. ch. 8. 155–164. Organic Electroluminescence. vol. and J. L. Kalinowski. M. 62. 162–164. pp. 2002. Zhou. 6. vol. Adachi. Weaver. no. Thompson. Rajan. no. C. S. Forrest. A.  C. “Architectures for eﬃcient electrophosphorescent organic light-emitting devices. C. M. and S. CRC Press and The International 43 . CRC Press and The International Society for Optical Engineering.  R. Organic Electroluminescence.” IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics. 2005. 2000. Tsui.  R. Y.
M.  S. Tokito. Chen. Kim. Sakamoto. O. Park. Watanabe. Oh. Takezoe. Y. “Organic electroluminescent devices with improved stability. 2005. 2006. Pfeiﬀer. Park. 2. and J. Suzuki. “High-eﬃciency and low-voltage p-i-n electrophosphorescent organic lightemitting diodes with double-emission layers. B. Y. D. N. Cho. vol. Shinar. 2004. ch. 3911–3913. Ikai.” Applied Physics Letters. and B.  S.” Applied Physics Letters. Kang. Organic Light-Emitting Devices: A Survey.  S. S. 89. W. Kim. J. S. C. S. Park. H. T. 2004. H. no. J. 69. Emission Mechanisms in Organic Light-Emitting Diodes. vol. H. H. S. 85. Watanabe. Birnstock. Tang. R. He. Hofmann.  M. and Y. 2001. VanSlyke. pp. S. G. W. Pudzich. Choi. and C. 1996.Society for Optical Engineering. Y. 17. vol. Verlag. Salbeck. “Enhanced light emission from phosphorescent single-layered organic light-emitting devices doped with 44 New York: Springer- . H. M. W. 2160– 2162. S. A.  G. E. J. Saito. and J.  J. H. Oh. Park.” Applied Physics Letters. Kim. Leo. “Highly eﬃcient phosphorescence from organic light-emitting devices with an exciton-block layer. pp. Taga. no.” Applied Physics Letters. “Highly eﬃcient green phosphorescent single-layered organic light-emitting devices. vol. Y. 79. Seo. K. S.
” Applied Physics Letters. Yang and D. Thompson. 2476– 2478. “Measuring the eﬃciency of organic light-emitting devices. Forrest. pp. 2007. Oh. B.” Journal of Applied Physics. E. and S. vol. “Solution processable ionic p-i-n phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes. vol. no. Liu. 2003. 2005.  H. D. 13.ionic salt by simultaneous thermal and electrical annealing. 14. 102. Wang.  X. Sun. C. vol. Xia. 2008. X. 93. Y. “Higheﬃciency polymer electrophosphorescent diodes based on an ir (iii) complex. and Y. H. Xie.” Applied Physics Letters. J. Zhang. vol. 84. 2004. R. Lee. vol. Park. H. 45 . 1043– 1048. Bradley. He.” Applied Physics Letters. pp. “Polymer electrophosphorescence devices with high power conversion eﬃciencies. no. 87.  S. Han. P. and M. 15.” Advanced Materials. Neher. M.  B. D. S. C.