FEATURE ARTICLE

DOI: 10.1002/adfm.200700174

Organic Light Emitting Field Effect

Transistors: Advances and Perspectives**
By Fabio Cicoira and Clara Santato*

Light emitting field effect transistors based on molecular and polymeric organic semiconductors are multifunctional
devices that integrate light emission with the current modulating function of a transistor. The planar geometry of
organic light emitting field effect transistors (OLEFETs) offers direct access to the light emission region, providing a
unique experimental configuration to investigate fundamental optical and electronic properties in organic semicon-
ductors. OLEFETs show great potential for technological applications such as active matrix full color electrolumi-
nescent displays. In this Feature Article we review advances in OLEFETs since their first demonstration in 2003 and
we highlight exciting challenges associated with their future development.

1. Introduction Further interest in organic optoelectronics has been gener-

Organic semiconductors are based on p-conjugated mole-
cules and polymers. Several physical and chemical properties
of organic semiconductors such as charge carrier transport, lu-
minescence, environmental and thermal stability depend on
their molecular structure, so that they can be tuned by chemi-
cal synthesis. This aspect, together with multifunctionality (i.e.,
the possibility to combine several properties such as charge car-
rier transport and electroluminescence) and ease of processing
on a wide range of substrates, makes organic semiconductors
suitable for a variety of applications.[1] Field effect transistors
(FETs), light emitting diodes (LEDs) and photovoltaic cells
based on organic semiconductors have been widely investi-
gated in the last decades.[2] Their development paves the way
towards plastic electronics, that is expected to complement sili-
con electronics.
– of an organic FET (OFET). An OFET is a three electrode de-
[*] Dr. C. Santato,[+] Dr. F. Cicoira
INRS-EMT, Université du Québec
1650 boulevard Lionel-Boulet, Varennes, Quebec, J3X 1S2 (Canada)
E-mail: csantato@bo.ismn.cnr.it
[+] On leave from Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Istituto per
lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati (ISMN), Via Gobetti 101,
40129, Bologna, Italy.
[**] The authors are grateful to the Canadian Bureau for International Ed-
ucation for supporting their stay in Canada and to FQRNT for partial
funding of the project of Organic Electronics. This work has benefited
greatly from fruitful discussions with F. Rosei, J. A. Miwa, K. Dunn
(Univ. Québec, EMT-INRS), A. Bonfiglio (Università di Cagliari and
S3 Modena), D. F. Perepichka, A. Ivasenko (McGill University).
Present and former colleagues from ISMN and ISOF (CNR) in
Bologna are acknowledged for the stimulating work done together.
ated by the realization of organic light emitting field effect
transistors (OLEFETs).[3,4] OLEFETs are based on organic
semiconductors where it is possible to achieve the supramolec-
ular organization leading to both charge carrier transport and
electroluminescence.[5] OLEFETs are multifunctional devices
that combine the current modulating function of a transistor
with light emission. They are attractive for both fundamental
studies and technological applications. OLEFETs are excellent
test systems to investigate physical processes such as charge
carrier injection, transport, and electroluminescence (EL) in
organic semiconductors. The planar geometry of the device
(compared to the vertically stacked geometry of organic LEDs,
OLEDs), offers direct access to optical probes to image elec-
troluminescence. OLEFETs are promising for the develop-
ment of highly integrated organic optoelectronic devices such
as active matrix full color electroluminescent displays. More-
over, their development can lead to electrically driven organic
lasers tunable across the visible range.[6]
The structure of an OLEFET (see Fig. 1) derives from that
vice. The organic active layer is in contact with source (S) and
drain (D) electrodes whereas it is isolated from the gate (G)
electrode by the gate dielectric.[7] The region of the organic ac-
tive layer delimited by the S and D electrodes defines the tran-
sistor channel whose geometry is characterized by the inter-
electrode distance (L) and the electrode width (W). On
application of an appropriate gate electrode bias (Vg), holes
and electrons are injected from the S and D electrodes into the
transistor channel, where they move under the action of a
drain-source bias (Vds). S and D electrodes with appropriate
work functions should be selected to enable efficient electron
injection in the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO)

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 3421
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE

tron injecting electrodes’ bias, it is possible to vary the location of

Figure 1. Device structure and working principle of an Organic Light Emit-
ting Field Effect Transistor (OLEFET), with a bottom contact geometry [7].
and hole injection in the highest occupied molecular orbital
(HOMO) of the organic semiconductor. The magnitude of the
current flowing between the S and D electrodes (Ids) is modu-
lated by the gate bias, which is also used to turn the device
from the off to the on state. If the organic semiconductor is
electroluminescent, holes and electrons form excitons that re-
combine radiatively to generate light in the transistor channel.
In OLEFETs it is more appropriate to use the terms hole inject-
ing and electron injecting electrodes rather than source and
drain, since one electrode is the hole source (and the electron
drain) and the other is the electron source (and the hole drain).
By varying the gate bias between the hole injecting and the elec-
the light emission region within the channel, where electron and
hole accumulation layers meet.[8] This is beneficial for EL effi-
ciency as excitons can be generated far from the metallic elec-
trodes, which can quench light emission, and indicates the re-
markable advantage of the three electrode versus the two
electrode configuration of OLEDs. Ideally, OLEFETs are ambi-
polar devices, i.e., both holes and electrons are injected and trans-
ported. Nevertheless, gate modulated electroluminescence is ob-
served also in unipolar devices, where just one type of charge
carrier (electron or hole) is transported. Light emission in unipo-
lar OLEFETs occurs in close proximity of the electrode that in-
jects the charge carriers that are not transported.
The optoelectronic characterization of OLEFETs requires the
measurement of optical and electrical gate modulated character-
istics, from which the external quantum efficiency (EQE) can be
extracted. Electrical characteristics allow to calculate the FET
mobility and the ON/OFF ratio of the device.[2b] Other pieces of
information are the EL spectrum, which gives the color of the
emitted light, and the imaging of the light emission region in the
operating device, which reveals the position of the recombination
region as a function of the biasing conditions.
Table 1 lists the chemical structures, the names and the com-
mon abbreviations for semiconductors employed in OLEFETs
together with the semiconductor processing, the gate dielec-
trics, the electrode materials and the most significant device
characteristics of OLEFETs demonstrated to date. The active
layer can be a single material or a combination of different ma-

Clara Santato obtained the Laurea in Chemistry at the University of Bologna in 1995 after diploma
work in organic electrochemistry carried out in collaboration between the laboratory of Prof S.
Roffia in Bologna and the LEOPR (CNRS, Université J. Fourier) in Grenoble. In 2001, she earned
her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Geneva, working under the supervision of Prof. J.
Augustynsky on the photoelectrochemical hydrogen production using nanocrystalline semicon-
ducting WO3 films. During her PhD, she was a summer student at NREL (Golden, CO). C. Santa-
to is, since 2002, a research scientist at ISMN-CNR, Bologna. She was a visiting scientist at Purdue
University in Prof. K.-S. Choi’s laboratory in 2005 and at INRS-EMT (Montreal) in the group of
Prof. F. Rosei in 2006. Her main scientific interests are in the fields of electrochemistry, organic
electronics, and solar energy conversion.

Fabio Cicoira obtained the Laurea in Chemistry from the University of Bologna in 1996. He per-
formed his M.Sc. work at CERN in Geneva, where he worked as an associate researcher in the
group of Dr C. Benvenuti until the end of 1997. In 1998 he joined the group of Dr P. Hoffmann at
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL) for doctoral studies, which he com-
pleted in 2002. He was then researcher (2002–2005) at the ISMN-CNR in Bologna. In 2005 he
joined the group of Prof. Federico Rosei at the EMT-INRS in Varennes (Canada) with a Canadian
Government fellowship. Since August 2007 he is recipient of a Marie Curie International Outgoing
Fellowship from the European Union in collaboration with Prof. G.G. Malliaras (Cornell Univer-
sity) and Dr S. Iannotta (IFN-CNR, Trento). His current research interests focus on organic de-
vices, thin film growth and self-assembly of organic molecules.

3422 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434
F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors

FEATURE ARTICLE
Table 1. Organic semiconductors employed in OLEFETs: molecular structure, chemical names and abbreviations, Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital/
Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO/LUMO) levels; semiconductor configuration and processing; gate dielectric; the electrode materials em-
ployed in OLEFETs; the most significant device characteristics, such as hole and electron FET mobility (lh and le), maximum emission wavelenght (kmax),
external quantum efficiency (EQE) and amplified stimulated emission (ASE) thresholds. The optoelectronic characteristics were evaluated in vacuum or
inert atmosphere.

Organic semiconductor Semiconductor Gate dielectric Electrode Device properties

configuration and materials
processing

OR Single layer SiN and polypropylene-co- Top contact, Ag/Ca le=6.10-5 cm2/Vs
OR Spin coating 1-butene, 14 weight % 1- lh=3.10-4 cm2/Vs
OR
butane (PPCB)

x y z
RO
Aryl-substituted poly(p-arylene vinylene), "SuperYellow"
HOMO 4.8 eV, LUMO 2.4 eV [13]

Single layer SiO2 and Top contact, Au/Ca le=3.10-3 cm2/Vs

Spin coating (5mg mL-1 in benzocyclobutene lh=6.10-4 cm2/Vs
warm dry xylene) derivative (BCB) kmax ~ 660 nm
EQE 0.35%
O

n
MeO
Poly(2-methoxy-5-(3,7-dimethyloctoxy)-p-phenylene-vinylene, O-
C1C10-PPV [15]

N
S Single layer Poly(methyl-methacrylate) Bottom contact Au/Au, le, lh=7-9.10-4 cm2/Vs
N
Spin coating (PMMA) Top gate kmax ~ 540 nm
(10–12 mg mL-1 in warm EQE 0.75%
n
anhidrous xylene)

Poly(9,9-di-n-octyl-fluorene-alt-benzothiadiazolo), F8BT
HOMO 5.9 eV, LUMO 3.3 eV [18]

O Single layer SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/Au le , lh~.10-4 cm2/Vs

Spin coating kmax ~ 911 nm
(from a 10–12 mg mL-1
O
chloroform solution)
followed by annealing in
2,4-di-3-guaiazulenyl-1,3-dihydroxycyclobutenediyliumdixydrox-
vacuum
ide-bis inner salt (SQ1)
HOMO 5 eV, LUMO 3.8 eV [24]

Single layer SiO2, OTS treated SiO2, Bottom contact (linear and lh~10-2 cm2/Vs
Evaporation Mylar# circular) kmax ~ 540 nm
Tetracene Au/Au, Au/Ca lext≈1.10-5 photons/
HOMO 5.4 eV, LUMO 2.7 eV charge
[26,28,29,31,36,37]

Single layer SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/ Au Not reported

S S S Evaporation

2,4-bis(4-(2’-thiophene-yl)phenyl)thiophene, TPTPT [49]

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.afm-journal.de 3423
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE

Single crystal SiO2 Top contact Au/Al lh=2.2.10-1 cm2/Vs

S S
S
Top contact lh=6.10-2 cm2/Vs
a,c-bisdiphenylterthiophene, BP3T
Au/MgAg
HOMO 5.1 eV, LUMO 2.8 eV [47]

H3C S CH3 Single layer

S S
C6H13 S C6H13 Evaporation
S S S

2,6-Bis-(5’-hexyl-[2,2’]bithiophen-5-yl)-3,5-dimethyl-
SiO2 Circular bottom contact, lh=2.10-2 cm2/Vs
dithieno[3,2-b;2’,3’-d] thiophene, DTT7Me [44] Single layer Au/Au lh=1.10-2 cm2/Vs
Drop casting (1.5 x10-3 M
in warm toluene)

n-2
Single layer SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/Au B2, lh=2.10-6 cm2/Vs
Evaporation B3, lh=2.5.10-5 cm2/Vs
n=2, bi(9,9’-spirobifluorene) B2. and kmax~430 nm, and
HOMO 5.9 eV, LUMO 2.7 eV lext ≈ 0.60%
n=3, ter(9,9’-spirobifluorene) B3.
HOMO 6.1 eV, LUMO 3 eV [50]

n-2 Single layer SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/Au S2, lh=5.10-6 cm2/Vs
Evaporation S3,lh=1.10-5 cm2/Vs

n=2, bi(9,9-ditolylfluorene), T2.

HOMO 5.5 eV, LUMO 2.2 eV
n=3, ter(9,9-ditolylfluorene) T3.
HOMO 5.4 eV, LUMO 2.3 eV [50]

Single layer SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/Au lh=3.10-7 cm2/Vs

Evaporation
N N
4,5-diazafluorene-incorporated ter(9,9diaryl fluorine), B3[N2]
HOMO 5.5 eV, LUMO 2.7 eV [50]

Co-Evaporation lh=10-5 cm2/Vs

Host-guest (1 wt% rubrene kmax~559 nm
in TPPy,) SiO2 See [42]

Single layer TPPy lh=10-5 cm2/Vs

Tetraphenylpyrene (TPPy), rubrene
kmax~455 nm
[39,42]

n
Single layer OTS treated SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/Au lh=4.10-5 cm2/Vs
Spin coating (in CHCl3) kmax~530 nm

Poly[9,9-di(ethylhexyl)fluorene]
HOMO 5.8 eV, LUMO 2.1 eV [21]

Single layer SiO2 Bottom contact, Au-on-Cr/ lh=10-4 cm2/Vs

Solution casting Au-on-Al kmax~580 nm
O
(0.5wt% in chlorobenzene)

n
MeO
Poly(2-methoxy,5-(2’-ethylhexoxy)-1,4-phenylenevinylene),
MEH-PPV
[22,23]

3424 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434
F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors

FEATURE ARTICLE
O O

C13H27 N N C13H27

O O
Bulk heterojunction SiO2 Top contact, Au/Au lh=10-4 cm2/Vs
N,N’-ditridecylperylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylicdiimide, P13
Co-evaporation le=10-3 cm2/Vs
HOMO 5.4 eV, LUMO 3.4 eV

S S
S S S

a-quinquethiophene, a-T5
HOMO 5.3 eV, LUMO 2.8 eV [53,54]

O O
Evaporation lh=3.10-2 cm2/Vs
C13H27 N N C13H27 Bi-layer (DHT4/P13/SiO2) le=3.10-2 cm2/Vs

O O
SiO2 Top contact, Au/Au
P13

S S
Evaporation lh=2.10-3 cm2/Vs
C6H13 C6H13
S S Bi-layer (P13/DHT4/SiO2) le=4.10-2 cm2/Vs
a,c-dihexyl-quaterthiophene, DHT4
[56]

O O

C13H27 N N C13H27

O O
Evaporation
P13
Heterostructure confined SiO2 Bottom contact, Au/Au lh=3.5.10-4 cm2/Vs
within the channel le=2.5.10-2 cm2/Vs
O

O
1,4
1,4-bis(octyloxy)-2,5-bis[(E)-4-(E)-styrylstyryl]benzene,
(O-octyl-OPV5)
[57]

terials. OLEFETs, with unipolar or ambipolar electrical char-
acteristics, have been realized with a number of molecular and
polymeric semiconductors, processed by thermal evaporation
or from solution. Light emission has been observed in the visi-
ble and near infrared region of the spectrum. The highest exter-
nal quantum efficiency reported to date is about 0.75 %.
In this Feature Article we review current research in OLE-
FETs and indicate possible developments in the field with the
hope to stimulate the discussion among readers involved in the
area, particularly those with different backgrounds (e.g., physi-
cists, organic synthetic chemists, electrical engineers, materials
scientists). The article is organized as follows: Section 2 is dedi-
cated to organic light emitting field effect transistors; Section 3
reports on light emitting transistors using device structures al-
ternative to FET; Section 4 briefly discusses light emitting field
effect transistors based on carbon nanotubes. To conclude, Sec-
tion 5 indicates perspectives and opportunities for future de-
velopments in the field.
Although beyond the scope of this Feature Article, we
briefly mention that impressive results have been obtained in
the field of light emitting transistors based on inorganic semi-
conductors. It has been reported on light emitting heterojunc-
tion bipolar transistors and on their laser operation when direct
bandgap III-V materials are used.[9] Besides that, field effect
electroluminescence from Si nanocrystals embedded in SiO2
has been demonstrated.[10] Light emission is due to the recom-
bination of excitons created by sequential field induced carrier
injection. More recently, a light emitting field effect transistor
based on an ultra thin silicon single crystal has been real-
ized.[11]
2. Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
We start this Section (Paragraph 2.1) discussing ambipolar
OLEFETs where it is possible to move the light emission re-
gion within the transistor channel. Paragraph 2.2 deals with
OLEFETs based on tetracene and other oligoacenes. Tetra-
cene has been the first material used in OLEFETs and, even
though up to now it has shown exclusively unipolar p-type be-
havior, it is still a model compound in the investigation of these
devices. In Paragraph 2.3 we discuss LEFETs based on oligo-
thiophenes and in paragraph 2.4 OLEFETs based on oligo-
fluorenes, materials interesting for applications in organic la-

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.afm-journal.de 3425
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE
sers. We conclude with paragraph 2.5 discussing devices with
ambipolar electrical characteristics.
2.1. Ambipolar OLEFETs
The first ambipolar OLEFETs were based on solution pro-
cessed active layers of polyphenylene vinylene (PPV) deriva-
tives. Previous studies reported that these electroluminescent
polymers, commonly employed in LEDs, exhibit reasonable
hole and electron FET mobility if the gate dielectric of the
transistor (typically SiO2) is passivated with an organic dielec-
tric.[12] The presence of the organic dielectric is a key feature to
realize ambipolar OFETs since it limits electron trapping at
the semiconductor/dielectric interface, thus enabling ambipolar
transport in semiconductors believed to act exclusively as
p-type. Swensen et al. used an active layer of the PPV deriva-
tive “Superyellow” and Ag and Ca contacts for hole and elec-
tron injecting electrodes.[13,14] Zaumseil et al. used an active
layer of OC1C10-PPV and Au and Ca electrodes for hole and
electron injection.[15] Figure 2a shows the movement of the
light emission region in the OC1C10-PPV-LEFET at
Vg = –90 V and Vds varying from –79 to –100 V. A narrow line
of light appears close to the Ca contact as soon as Vds exceeds
the threshold bias for the formation of an electron accumula-
tion layer. With increasing Vds the emission zone moves
gradually from the Ca electrode toward the Au electrode. Fig-
ure 2b displays the electrical transfer characteristics of the
same device at Vds = –80 V with Vg going from +10 to –60 V.
The minimum in the plot at about Vg = –20 V indicates the
transition from the electron- to the hole-dominated current.
Ambipolar characteristics are revealed also in the output
curves shown in Figure 2c. Here, at biasing conditions typical
for p-type transistors, electron transport is revealed at low ab-
Figure 2. OC1C10-PPV ambipolar light emitting field effect transistor em-
ploying Au and Ca contacts for the hole and electron injecting electrodes:
a) Movement of the emission zone as a function of the applied bias:
Vg = –90 V and Vds = –79, –86, –93, –100 V, from left to right. b) Transfer
characteristics at Vds = –80 V. c) Output characteristics. Adapted by per-
mission from [15]. Copyright 2006 (Nature Publishing Group).
3426 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
solute values Vg and high Vds by a superlinear increase of
the current.[16,17]
Along this line, an ambipolar OLEFET based on the poly-
mer F8BT with top gate configuration[7] employing a polymeric
gate dielectric has been demonstrated.[18] The choice of F8BT
was motivated by previous results indicating that this material
has electron FET mobility of approximately 10–3 cm2 V–1 s–1
and efficient green emission.[19] F8BT was spun on a glass sub-
strate pre-patterned with hole and electron injecting Au elec-
trodes. A layer of PMMA (polymer gate dielectric) was then
spun on the F8BT and subsequently the Au top gate electrode
was evaporated. The devices showed ambipolar characteristics
with the possibility to control the position of the light emission
region. This indicates efficient electron and hole injection from
Au, despite the high injection barriers for both processes
(about 1.2 eV), possibly due to the effect of the top gate field.
The emission spectrum of the F8BT OLEFET is indistinguish-
able from that of the corresponding LED. The maximum EQE
of the device is about 0.75 %.
An analytic device model for ambipolar OLEFETs has been
proposed. To reproduce well the characteristics of the devices,
in particular those reported in ref. [13], the model had to take
into account charge carrier trapping (a process of primary im-
portance in establishing charge carrier transport in organic
semiconductors) by considering charge carrier density-depen-
dent mobility, with low mobilities at low charge carrier densi-
ties.[20]
Research in solution processed polymeric OLEFETs, that
led to the ambipolar devices discussed above, started with the
realization of unipolar devices. The first polymeric OLEFET
was based on a spun cast layer of poly[9,9-di(ethylexyl)fluor-
ene].[21] Light emission from the p-type transistor was localized
close to the electron injecting electrode, independently of the
biasing conditions (vide infra, Paragraph 2.2). Subsequently, a
MEH-PPV based OLEFET able to generate orange light emis-
sion was demonstrated.[22] Au bottom contact electrodes
employing Al adhesion layer (Au/Al) on SiO2 led to an im-
provement of about one order of magnitude in the electrolumi-
nescence intensity compared to Au electrodes employing Cr
adhesion layer (Au/Cr). This result was explained assuming
that the injection could also occur from the adhesion layer so
that the lower work function of Al compared to that of Cr
would facilitate electron injection. EL in MEH-PPV based
OLEFETs was improved by a factor of 20 using dissimilar elec-
trodes, i.e., Au/Cr hole injecting and Al electron injecting elec-
trodes (instead of using Au/Cr or Au/Al for both electrodes).[23]
An interesting approach to ambipolar OLEFETs has been
proposed by Smits et al., based on the use of molecules with
small HOMO–LUMO gaps and favorable position of the
HOMO and LUMO energy levels versus the work functions of
the electrodes.[24] A film of squarylium dye (SQ1) was spun cast
on a SiO2 gate dielectric treated with hexamethyldisilazane
and pre-patterned with Au electrodes. SQ1 has HOMO and
LUMO energy levels lying at 5 and 3.8 eV (i.e., a bandgap as
low as 1.2 eV) leading to both hole and electron injection from
Au. Radiative recombination of the injected charges led to
light emission in the near infrared region.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434
F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors

FEATURE ARTICLE
Yamane et al. reported on an ambipolar OLEFET based on
BP3T molecular semiconductor.[25] BP3T was vacuum sublimed
on a SiO2 dielectric passivated with a vapor deposited n-tria-
contane film. The position of the light emission zone within the
transistor channel was controlled by the applied bias. Electrons
are injected from an Al:Li (99:1) electrode, in presence of a
pentacene electron inection layer (the reported LUMO levels
for BP3T and pentacene are 2.8 and 3.4 eV, respectively,
whereas the work function of Al:Li is 4 eV), and holes are in-
jected from a gold electrode

2.2. Unipolar OLEFETs Based on Tetracene and other

Oligoacenes

Oligoacenes have been widely investigated for applications

in OFETs and OLEDs.[26] The first reported OLEFET was
based on tetracene,[27] that was selected because of its fairly
good charge carrier transport and EL properties.[28] An image
of the operating device is shown in Figure 3a. Green electrolu-
minescence is visible close to the electron injecting (drain) Au
electrode. The spectrum of the emitted light, shown in
Figure 3b, confirms EL from tetracene. Emission close to the
electron injecting electrode is in accordance with the unipolar
p-type characteristics of tetracene LEFETs reported in
Figure 4.[29]
A phenomenological model to explain the energetically un-
favorable electron injection from gold (that has a work func-
tion of 5.1 eV) into tetracene (whose LUMO lies at 2.4 eV)
was proposed in a successive study.[30] The model assumes that
the voltage drop at the metal/semiconductor interface, caused
by a contact barrier, induces a distortion of the HOMO and
LUMO levels of tetracene thus enabling electron injection by
tunneling. The model accounts for the observation that EQE
increases with increasing of Vds and it is independent of Vg.
In fact, increasing Vg induces an increase in the hole current
that leads to higher electroluminescence intensity but does not
affect EQE, which depends on electron injection via tunneling
whose probability increases with Vds.
The mechanism of light generation proposed above is in
agreement with a study on the correlation between morphol-
Figure 3. a) Optical image of the electroluminescence from a tetracene LEFET, employing interdigi-
tated hole injecting (source, S) and electron injecting (drain, D) Au electrodes. b) Electrolumines-
cence spectrum of the tetracene LEFET. Reprinted with permission from [27]. Copyright 2003
(American Physical Society).
Figure 4. a) Optoelectronic output characteristics of a tetracene LEFET: Ids
on the left y-axis, and EL on the right y-axis, versus Vds, recorded at various
Vg (W/L= 1029 lm/3 lm). b) Transfer characteristics of the same LEFET
at Vds = –40 V, Ids on the left y-axis, and (Ids)1/2 on the right y-axis. The
ON/OFF ratio of the device is > 105. Adapted with permission from [29].
ogy and optoelectronic properties in tetracene films.[29] Increas-
ing the nominal deposition rate of tetracene films from 0.1 to
5 Å s–1, led to an increase of the hole FET mobility by almost
one order of magnitude, as shown in Figure 5a. Atomic Force
Microscopy (AFM) micrographs shown in Figure 5b and c re-
vealed that the effect is due to an improvement of the substrate
surface coverage and film connectivity
achieved at high deposition rates, where
the nucleation density is higher.[31] How-
ever, EQE did not show any dependence
on the deposition rate, thus confirming its
independence on the hole current.
Tetracene LEFETs were fabricated also
on circular interdigitated Au bottom con-
tact substrates,[32] shown in Figure 7b. The
concentric geometry allows circumventing
parasitic currents due to the unpatterned
semiconducting film, permitting an appro-
priate correlation between current and
electroluminescence.[33] The circular Au
contacts were deposited on SiO2 using an
organosilane adhesion layer,[34] instead of
the usual metallic one, to exclude injection

Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.afm-journal.de 3427
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE
Figure 5. a) FET mobility of tetracene LEFETs versus nominal deposition
rate: maximum values (full circles) and averages (open circles with error
bars). On each sample the average was calculated on 10–15 devices with
channel lengths (L) of 2, 3, 5, and 20 lm and widths (W) of 100, 300,
1019, 1029, 1048 lm. The nominal thickness of the active layers was
50 nm. The error bars are two times the standard error. AFM images of
50 nm-thick (nominal thickness) tetracene films deposited on SiO2 at a
nominal deposition rate of b) 0.5 Å s–1, and c) 5 Å s–1. Adapted with per-
mission from [29].
from the adhesion layer and under etching during the lithography
process. Devices employing the organosilane adhesion layer
show FET mobility and electroluminescence intensity one order
of magnitude higher than those employing metal. The larger
grain size (accompanied by a lower number of grain boundaries
acting as charge carrier traps) and the more homogeneous
morphology of tetracene at the interface (contributing to an effi-
cient charge injection) explained the better performance of the
tetracene LEFETs using organosilane.
Charge carrier injection into tetracene was further investi-
gated on devices employing Au and Ca as the hole and electron
injecting electrodes.[35] Even though an electron injecting elec-
trode with a low work function was employed, the electrolumi-
nescence was localized close to the electron injecting electrode.
This result was observed even with transistors with sub-mi-
crometer channel lengths.
Electrochemical interface doping, a modified version of the
electrochemical doping,[36] was adopted to balance hole and
electron injection and transport in tetracene LEFETs.[37] Here,
a polymer electrolyte interposed between the gate dielectric
and the tetracene film induces the formation of a dipole layer
at the electrodes when the device is biased. This causes a strong
3428 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
potential drop, which favors charge carrier injection via tunnel-
ing, independently of the work function of the electrode. Elec-
trochemical doping of tetracene occurs and proceeds along the
gate insulator interface via the electrolyte. This approach al-
lowed the fabrication of p-type tetracene LEFETs operating at
low voltages. To maintain the electrochemical doping effect,
the devices needed to be operated at temperatures as low as
230 K, to reduce the ion mobility in the electrolyte.
The demonstration of a tetracene LEFET on a flexible and
transparent 900 nm thick Mylar foil acting as substrate and
gate dielectric represented a step forward in the fabrication of
flexible OLEFETs.[38] Mylar patterning with Au electrodes was
achieved by a simple optical lithography procedure.[39] AFM
images showed that tetracene films have a good adhesion on
Mylar. This result is promising for the integration of OLEFETs
with flexible substrates such as textiles and paper.
Besides tetracene, other oligoacenes have been used as ac-
tive materials in OLEFETs. The system TPPy/rubrene has
been employed in host–guest configuration to increase the
quantum efficiency of OLEFETs, exploiting Förster energy
transfer.[40,41] TPPy films showed typical p-type FET character-
istics and PL efficiency of 68 % whereas 1 wt % rubrene doped
TPPy films have a PL efficiency as high as 99 %. P-type OLE-
FETs based on TPPy films doped with 1 wt % rubrene showed
characteristic rubrene emission with intensity increasing with
increasing Vg, as shown in Figure 6a. LEFETs based on un-
doped TPPy exhibited 10 times lower external quantum effi-
ciency although the hole FET mobility were similar (about
2 × 10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1). A systematic study indicated that the
quantum efficiency is influenced by the channel length and
electrode materials.[42] The maximum quantum efficiency was
observed for L= 1 lm when MgAl was used for the electron
and Au for the hole injecting electrode. Along this line, a ru-
brene doped TPPy LEFET was used to investigate the EL
mechanism in unipolar OLEFETs.[43] On a bottom contact sub-
strate with 40 nm thick Au electrodes, a 10 nm thick layer of
rubrene doped TPPy was inserted as sensing layer in an 80 nm
thick TPPy film, at a variable height ranging from 10 to 80 nm
(see Figure 6b and c). EL spectra were recorded for different
heights of the electroluminescence sensing layer. The contribu-
tion of rubrene to the EL vanished when the position of the
sensing layer was higher than the electrode thickness thus indi-
cating that the emission region expands approximately from
the organic-dielectric interface to the height of the electrodes.
2.3. Unipolar OLEFETs Based on Oligothiophenes
Oligothiophenes are a versatile class of multifunctional ma-
terials for organic optoelectronics.[44] A few oligothiophene de-
rivatives have been used in OLEFETs, among them a rigid
core dithienotiophene, DTT7 Me.[45] The choice of this mole-
cule was motivated by previous investigations on oligomers
containing the dithienothiophene moiety showing high hole
FET mobility.[46] Strong photoluminescence (PL) as well as EL
in OLED configuration was found for films based on dithie-
nothiophene S,S-dioxides.[5] The presence of the methyl substit-
uents on the rigid core enhances solubility and keeps molecules
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434
F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
Figure 6. LEFET based on rubrene 1 wt % in a TPPy host: a) Electrolumi-
nescence spectra for increasing Vg. Adapted with permission from [40].
Copyright 2005 (American Institute of Physics). b) Transmission Electron
Microscopy (TEM) image of the cross section of a device where the ru-
brene-doped TPPy has been confined to a sensing layer. Adapted with per-
mission from [43]. Copyright 2006 (American Institute of Physics).
c) Scheme of the device corresponding to the TEM image reported in b).
Adapted with permission from [43]. Copyright 2006 (American Institute of
Physics).
Figure 7. a) Optoelectronic output characteristics of a drop cast DTT7Me-based LEFET. Ids on the left y-axis, and EL on the right y-axis, versus Vds, re-
corded at increasing Vg (W/L= 42000 lm/6 lm). Adapted with permission from [45]. b) Interdigitated concentric Au source and drain electrodes with
W/L= 18 800 lm/40 lm. Adapted with permission from [32]. Copyright 2006 (American Institute of Physics).
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FEATURE ARTICLE
in the solid state sufficiently far apart to prevent PL quenching.
The terminal hexyl chains are expected to increase the structur-
al order of the film and thus enhance charge transport.
DTT7Me active layers were deposited employing both evapo-
ration and drop casting on concentric interdigitated Au elec-
trodes. Being thermally stable and soluble in organic solvents,
DTT7Me offers the opportunity to deposit films by solution
processes, to enable comparison with vacuum-sublimed films.
The optoelectronic characteristics of a solution processed
DTT7Me LEFET, that shows p-type unipolar behavior,
are reported in Figure 7a. LEFETs based on solution pro-
cessed and evaporated films had similar FET mobility (about
2 × 10–2 cm2 V–1 s–1) and EL. Evaporated films showed higher
ON/OFF ratio and lower threshold voltages. Laser Scanning
Confocal Microscopy (LSCM) showed that drop cast films are
less homogeneous than evaporated ones, probably due to lack
of control during the deposition process. The device described
above represented the first example of solution processed mo-
lecular OLEFETs.
Single crystals are of high interest for fundamental studies of
charge carrier transport and electroluminescence in absence of
grain boundaries.[47] The only single crystal OLEFET reported
to date was based on the phenylthiophene derivative BP3T.[48]
A BP3T crystal was placed on a SiO2 surface and hole and
electron injecting electrodes were deposited on it. Three differ-
ent materials were tested as electron injecting electrodes, i.e.,
Au, Al, and MgAl whereas the hole injecting electrode was al-
ways Au. The devices showed unipolar p-type behavior with a
mobility as high as 0.29 cm2 V–1 s–1. Only the devices with Al
and MgAl electrodes were able to generate electrolumines-
cence (with a higher intensity when using MgAl) likely due to
a more effective electron injection.[49]
Active layers of phenylthiophene derivative TPTPT deposited
on Au bottom contact electrodes led to p-type LEFETs.[50] Two
different channel lengths were considered: 0.8 and 9.8 lm. Short
channel devices led to higher EL efficiency because of the high
lateral electric field that reduces the height of the electron injec-
tion barrier from Au in to the TPTPT LUMO (about 3 eV high).
www.afm-journal.de 3429
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE
Recently, unipolar n-type OLEFETs were demonstrated
based on vacuum sublimed films of dithienylbenzothiadiazole.[51]
The molecule has multifunctional characteristics that make it a
good candidate for OLEFETs. It contains trifluoromethylphenyl
groups, known to lead to high electron FET mobility and the
strongly accepting heterocyclic unit. Moreover, dithienylben-
zothiadiazole derivatives are known to be efficient fluorophores.
Gate modulated light emission was observed together with a re-
markably low threshold voltage (3 V), ON/OFF ratio of 106 and
an electron FET mobility as high as 0.19 cm2 V–1 s–1.
2.4. OLEFETs Based on Oligofluorene Derivatives
Five oligo(9,9-diarylfluorene) derivatives were investigated
as active materials in OLEFETs.[52] Previous observations indi-
cated that oligo(9,9-diarylfluorene)s exhibit high PL efficien-
cies from deep blue to near Ultra Violet, exhibit reasonably
high mobilities for both holes and electrons (about
10–3 cm2 V–1 s–1) and are thermally stable.[53] Vacuum sublimed
films of oligo(9,9-diarylfluorene) derivatives exhibit transistor
behavior (unipolar p-type) and high PL quantum efficiencies.
A LEFET based on a film of [ter(9,9′-spirobifluorene)] showed
a maximum EQE of 0.6 % and a rather low hole FET mobility
of about 10–5 cm2 V–1 s–1. Interestingly, the five oligo(9,9-diaryl-
fluorene)s showed low amplified spontaneous emission (ASE)
thresholds (the threshold to observe stimulated emission is a
criterium to characterize a material as laser gain medium).
Films based on [ter(9,9-ditolylfluorene)] exhibited ASE with a
threshold as low as 0.5 mJ cm–2. These results indicate that oli-
go(9,9-diarylfluorene) derivatives have great potential for
OLEFETs and organic lasers.
2.5. Towards Ambipolar LEFETs Based on n- and p-Type
Semiconductors
OLEFETs showing ambipolar electrical characteristics have
been realized combining p-type and n-type molecular semicon-
ductors using three different approaches:
bulk heterojuction,[54] two component-
layered structures and heterostructures
confined within the transistor channel. All
these devices used the perylene derivative
P13 as n-type semiconductor and Au hole
and electron injecting electrodes.
The first OLEFET with ambipolar elec-
trical characteristics was based on the bulk
heterojunction approach.[55] The active
material was a co-evaporated film of P13
and the oligothiophene a-T5 (p-type semi-
conductor), in the ratio 1:1. Electron and
hole mobility of 5 × 10–3 cm2 V–1 s–1 and
2.5 × 10–2 cm2 V–1 s–1 in the pure reference
devices, differing less than one order of
magnitude, were appropriate to achieve
Figure 8. n- and p-type semiconductors heterostructure confined within the transistor channel:
ambipolar electrical characteristics. The
a) Schematic illustration of the n-type semiconductor deposition. b) Microphotograph of the
relative positions of the energy levels of finished device. Reproduced with permission from [59]. Copyright 2006 (American Institute of
HOMO and LUMO of the two organic Physics).
3430 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
semiconductors were selected to make possible exciton forma-
tion and radiative recombination in the material with the small-
er energy gap. Bulk heterojunction engineering was later em-
ployed to tune the optoelectronic properties of OLEFETs based
on the same materials using different ratios of the two compo-
nents.[56] Three different working regimes were identified:
(i) ambipolar operation and no light emission for an excess of a-
T5; (ii) ambipolar operation and light emission for 1:1 ratio;
(iii) unipolar operation and light emission for an excess of P13.
PL spectra revealed that when the concentration of P13 was re-
duced from 100 to 25 %, PL intensity decreased of about two or-
ders of magnitude. Time resolved PL spectroscopy indicated fast-
er P13 emission decay times in the co-evaporated films as
compared to the pure material,[57] probably due to exciton disso-
ciation by hole transfer to a-T5. LSCM imaging showed that when
a-T5 is present in excess the morphology of the film is heteroge-
neous being dominated by large a-T5 clusters, possibly responsible
for the high a-T5 proportion needed to achieve hole conduction.
A different approach based on a two component-layered
structure was reported for the system DHT4/P13 (DHT4 is a
thiophene oligomer).[58] Different deposition sequences were
evaluated. The best balance of electron and hole mobility (both
at 3 × 10–2 cm2 V–1 s–1) was found in bilayers where DHT4 was
deposited as first layer, in direct contact with the gate dielec-
tric. Morphological analysis with LSCM showed that this con-
figuration ensures a continuous DHT4/P13 interface. Electro-
luminescence occurs only when the layer in direct contact with
the dielectric is conductive. Electroluminescence is observed
also from a LEFET based on a single layer of P13.
A heterostructure where the thin layers of n- and p-type
semiconductors (P13/O-octyl-OPV5) overlap only in a narrow
region in the middle of the transistor channel has been
also proposed.[59] The semiconductors were sequentially
evaporated at different tilting angles on a substrate where a
thick polymer film, photolithographically defined on top of the
Au bottom contact electrodes, acted as shadow mask (Fig-
ure 8a). In this device, (Figure 8b), the emission should be con-
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434
F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
fined to the region where the semiconductors overlap thus
avoiding exciton and photon quenching at metal contacts.
Since the heterojunction pins the recombination zone in the
middle of the channel, n- and p-type materials with mobilities
differing by orders of magnitude could be employed.
3. Alternative Device Structures for Organic Light
Emitting Transistors
The vertical coupling between a static induction transistor
(SIT) and an OLED has been proposed in the search for light
emitting device structures as elements for flexible sheet dis-
plays with low operation voltage and high brightness. Different
gate electrode configurations were considered. In the begin-
ning, a grid type Al gate electrode was employed, as shown in
Figure 9a,[60] whose fabrication was later improved by the use
of a different shadow evaporation technique, leading to the
device structure shown in Figure 9b.[61] In the latter case, the
luminance (density of luminous intensity) of the device was
controlled by gate voltages as low as 1 V and dynamic opera-
tion was obtained at 60 Hz (possibly because of the vertical
type transistor with very short distance between the source,
drain and gate electrodes). To lower the operating drain-source
bias the grid type gate was placed out of the overlapped region
between the source and drain electrodes (corresponding to
anode and cathode in the typical nomenclature of OLEDs) to
prevent shielding electric fields efficiently.[62] The device
structure and the optical image of the working device are
shown in Figure 9c and d.[63]
Figure 9. a) and b) Static Induction Transistors (SIT)-organic light emit-
ting transistors making use of different grid-type gate electrodes.
a) adapted with permission from [60]. Copyright 2003 (Elsevier).
b) adapted with permission from [61]. Copyright 2005 (Elsevier). NPD is
the abbreviation for N,N′-diphenyl-N,N′-bis(1-naphthyl)-(1,1′-biphenyl)-
4,4′-diamine) and (Alq3) is the abbreviation for tris (8-quinolinolato) alu-
minum. c) Device structure and optical image of the operating device in
the case of a SIT-organic light emitting transistor as adapted with permis-
sion from [62]. Details on the composition of the layers are reported in
[63]. Copyright 2004 (American Institute of Physics).
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FEATURE ARTICLE
Exciting results for application of organic light emitting tran-
sistors in active matrix electroluminescent displays were ob-
tained using a Metal Insulator Semiconductor-type Organic
Light Emitting Transistor, (Figure 10a).[64] This structure is
constituted by an OLED stacked on a typical top contact or-
ganic transistor where the cathode of the OLED acts as the
drain electrode. An insulating layer on top of the source elec-
trodes is employed to let the holes diffuse efficiently to the
emitting layer, through the semiconductor layer. Indium tin ox-
ide (ITO) on glass or indium zinc oxide (IZO) on polyethersul-
phone (PES) were both used as transparent gate electrodes on
a substrate. In the latter case, the modulation of the brightness
by the gate bias remained unchanged with the device under a
bending of 10 mm radius. Along this line, recently it has been
reported on the development of an active matrix panel based
on MIS-organic light emitting transistors that includes 16 × 16
array of pixels (Figure 10b).[65]
An organic light emitting transistor, with p-type characteris-
tics, has been recently realized adopting a laterally arranged
heterojunction.[66] The device employs a pentacene film as
a)
Figure 10. a) Device structure (left) and optical image of the operating de-
vice (right) of a Metal Insulator Semiconductor Organic Light Emitting
Transistor. Reprinted with permission from [64]. Copyright 2006 (American
Institute of Physics). NPD is the abbreviation for N,N′-diphenyl-N,N′-
bis(1-naphthyl)-(1,1′-biphenyl)-4,4′-diamine) and (Alq3) is the abbreviation
for tris(8-quinolinolato) aluminum. b) Active matrix panel based on a Met-
al Insulator Semiconductor Organic Light Emitting Transistor that in-
cludes 16 × 16 array of pixels Reprinted with permission from ref. [65].
www.afm-journal.de 3431
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE
field-effect hole transporter and a tris(8-quinolato)aluminium
(Alq3) film, confined in a narrow region close to the electron
injecting electrode, as light emitting material. Au and LiF/Al
are used as hole and electron injecting electrodes. The
laterally arranged heterojunction aims at minimizing the exci-
ton quenching at the metal electrodes. The devices
showed current modulated electroluminescence with the char-
acteristic Alq3 emission and, remarkably, they could be oper-
ated in air.
4. Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors Based on
Carbon Nanotubes
In 2003, it was reported on infrared light emission from a car-
bon nanotube FET.[67] The electronic structures of carbon
nanotubes (NTs) and organic molecular semiconductors have
the common feature of an extended p conjugation of electrons.
Moreover, a carbon NT light emitting FET and an OLEFET
have a similar device structure. Charge injection in carbon NTs
light emitting FETs was found to occur via tunnelling, through
a Schottky barrier. The first ambipolar light emitting FET
based on carbon NTs was fabricated by evaporating titanium
electrodes through a shadow mask on carbon NTs pre-depos-
ited as dispersion from solution on a SiO2/Si substrate. Anneal-
ing at 850 °C led to the formation of titanium carbide resulting
in an abrupt junction between the metal and the NT. In a suc-
cessive work, where carbon NTs were deposited by chemical
vapor deposition on a SiO2/Si substrate and Pd electrodes were
defined by e-beam lithography, it was shown that the location
of light emission region in devices with long channel lengths
(∼ 50 lm) could be controlled varying biasing conditions as
shown in Figure 11.[68] Electroluminescence in carbon NTs ex-
hibits a variety of interesting properties such as emitted light
7 8 9 10 11 13 16 19 21 27 33 46 64 77 83 86 87 88 89 90 101
Figure 11. Infrared emission from a carbon nanotube-FET during a gate
voltage sweep (3D plots where x and y are lateral directions on the device
and z is the IR intensity.) The light intensity is also color-coded. An image
of the electrodes is superimposed on all frames to help identify the emit-
ting location. The nanotube (not visible) is aligned vertically between
source and drain. Reprinted with permission from [68]. Copyright 2004
(American Physical Society).
polarized along the nanotube axis and wavelength of the
emitted radiation in principle tunable with the diameter of the
NT. Electroluminescence in carbon NTs is a powerful tool to
gain information on the physics of one dimensional electronic
systems.[69] An excellent review on electronics and optoelec-
tronics of carbon nanotubes has been recently published.[70]
3432 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
5. Perspectives and Opportunities
Since the demonstration of the first OLEFET, many incred-
ible advances have been made and now the field is at a stage
for more fundamental investigations.[71]
Most of the OLEFETs reported so far show unipolar type
behaviour, with light emission localized at the minority charge
carrier injecting electrode. The unipolar versus ambipolar be-
havior of organic semiconductors is an object of research in the
organic electronics community. Indeed, charge carrier trans-
port depends not only on the specific molecular structure of
the semiconductor but also on the device structure (e.g., elec-
trode material work function and interface between the gate
dielectric and the semiconductor).[72,73] As a consequence, the
search for ambipolar semiconductors for OLEFETs has to be
paralleled by the use of suitable device structures.
The comprehension of the mechanisms of charge injection,
transport and electroluminescence in materials employed in
the first OLEFETs is helpful to figure out the criteria the mate-
rials have to satisfy to be used in efficient OLEFETs. Until
now, mostly solution processed semiconductors have yielded
ambipolar LEFETs. Even though solution processing is more
suitable for technological applications and mass production,
thermal evaporation techniques, such as molecular beam epi-
taxy (MBE), lead to a more controlled growth of the semicon-
ductors. This is needed to correlate physical properties of the
material with its morphological and crystallographic features.
Besides MBE or other similar deposition techniques, more in-
sight could be provided by the use of novel techniques, among
which Supersonic Molecular Beam Epitaxy (SuMBE)[74] and
neutral cluster beam deposition.[75] SuMBE offers the possibili-
ty to grow films with a wide range of morphologies/structures
and electronic properties, varying the kinetic energy of the
molecules impinging on the substrate. A deep investigation of
the electrode/semiconductor interface is required to under-
stand the mechanism of charge injection in OLEFETs, that of-
ten takes place despite the presence of high injection barriers
(as high as 1–2 eV). A valuable tool to characterize metal/or-
ganic semiconductor interfaces in OLEFETS would be Ultra-
violet Photoelectron Spectroscopy (UPS).[76] A key role in the
comprehension of the interactions between organic semicon-
ductors and metal surfaces is played by in situ Scanning Tun-
neling Microscopy (STM).[77] An interesting approach to the
study of charge injection in OLEFETs could be the use of sin-
gle wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) electrodes.[78] Since
SWCNTs possess a conjugated hexagonal ring structure, they
are expected to offer to organic molecules constituted of con-
densed benzene rings a surface where they can stack in a com-
mensurate configuration, thus resulting in interfaces that facili-
tate charge injection.
Most of the organic semiconductors employed as OLEFET
active layers were already known in organic electronics (either
as FET or LED materials). Therefore, there is plenty of room
for synthetic organic chemistry to design molecules and poly-
mers, tailored specifically for OLEFET applications, i.e., mate-
rials combining good charge transport and electrolumines-
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434
F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
cence.[79] Last but not least, a significant advancement would
be the realization of OLEFETs able to operate in air.
Received: February 10, 2007
Revised: April 30, 2007
Published online: October 23, 2007
– [20] D. L. Smith, P. P. Ruden, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 233 519.
[1] G. G. Malliaras, R. Friend, Phys. Today 2005, 58, 53.
[2] a) J. M. Sun, J. Q. Liu, D. B. Zhu, J. Mater. Chem. 2005, 15, 53. b)
C. D. Dimitrakopoulos, P. R. L. Malenfant, Adv. Mater. 2002, 14, 99.
c) T. B. Singh, N. S. Sariciftci, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2006, 36, 199. d)
B. Geffroy, P. le Roy, C. Prat, Polym. Int. 2006, 55, 572. e) L. S. Hung,
C. H. Chen, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 2002, 39, 143. f) H. Spanggaard, F. C.
Krebs, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2004, 83, 125. g) S. R. Forrest, Na-
ture 2004, 428, 911. h) R. H. Friend, R. W. Gymer, A. B. Holmes,
J. H. Burroughes, R. N. Marks, C. Taliani, D. D. C. Bradley, D. A.
Dos Santos, J.-L. Brédas, M. Lögdlund, W. R. Salaneck, Nature 1999,
397, 121.
[3] Different research groups are using different acronyms to indicate this
device. Example are: Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistor
(OLEFET); Light Emitting Organic Field Effect Transistor
(LEOFET); Organic Light Emitting Transistor (OLET); Light Emit-
ting Field Effect Transistor (LFET). We consider OLEFET the most
appropriate one.
[4] a) J. Zaumseil, H. Sirringhaus, Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 1296.
b) M. Muccini, Nat. Mater. 2006, 5, 605.
[5] a) E. Tedesco, F. Della Sala, L. Favaretto, G. Barbarella, D. Albesa-
Jové, D. Pisignano, G. Gigli, R. Cingolani, K. D. M. Harris, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 12 277. b) L. Antolini, E. Tedesco, G. Barbarel-
la, L. Favaretto, G. Sotgiu, M. Zambianchi, D. Casarini, G. Gigli,
R. Cingolani, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 9006.
[6] a) N. Tessler, D. J. Pinner, V. Cleave, P. K. H. Ho, R. H. Friend,
G. Yahioglu, P. Le Barny, J. Gray, M. de Souza, G. Rumbles, Synth.
Met. 2000, 115, 57. b) M. A. Baldo, R. J. Holmes, S. R. Forrest, Phys.
Rev. B 2002, 66, 35 321.
[7] S, D, and G electrodes can be assembled in different configurations,
i.e., bottom contact (shown in Fig. 1), top contact or top gate. In the
bottom contact configuration, the organic film is deposited on the
gate dielectric pre-patterned with source and drain electrodes; in the
top contact, source and drain electrodes are deposited on the organic
film grown on the gate dielectric; in the top gate configuration, source
and drain electrodes are deposited onto an inert substrate and, succes-
sively, the organic layer, the gate dielectric and the gate electrode are
deposited.
[8] A hole(electron) accumulation layer forms in the vicinity of the
hole(electron) injecting electrode due to the difference between gate bias
and hole(electron) injecting electrode bias (i.e., gate-to-channel bias).
[9] a) M. Feng, N. Holonyak, Jr., W. Hafez, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 84,
151. b) G. Walter, N. Holonyak, Jr., M. Feng, R. Chan, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2004, 85, 4768. c) F. Dixon, R. Chan, G. Walter, N. Holonyak, Jr.,
M. Feng, X. B. Zhang, J. H. Ryou, R. D. Dupuis, Appl. Phys. Lett.
2006, 88, 012 108.
[10] R. J. Walters, J. I. Burianoff, H. A. Atwater, Nat. Mater. 2005, 4, 143.
[11] S. Saito, D. Hisamoto, H. Shimizu, H. Hamamura, R. Tsuchiya,
Y. Matsui, T. Mine, T. Arai, N. Sugii, K. Torii, S. Kimura, T. Onai,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 163 504.
[12] L. L. Chua, J. Zaumseil, J. F. Chang, E. C. W. Ou, P. K. H. Ho, H. Sir-
ringhaus, R. H. Friend, Nature 2005, 434, 194.
[13] J. S. Swensen, C. Soci, A. J. Heeger, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 87,
253 511.
[14] J. Swensen, D. Moses, A. J. Heeger, Synth. Met. 2005, 153, 53.
[15] J. Zaumseil, R. H. Friend, H. Sirringhaus, Nat. Mater. 2006, 5, 69.
[16] a) A. Dodabalapur, H. E. Katz, L. Torsi, R. C. Haddon, Science 1995,
269, 1560. b) A. Dodabalapur, H. E. Katz, L. Torsi, R. C. Haddon,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 1996, 68, 1108. c) E. J. Meijer, D. M. de Leeuw,
S. Setayesh, E. Van Veenendaal, B.-H. Huisman, P. W. M. Blom, J. C.
Hummelen, U. Scherf, T. M. Klapwijk, Nat. Mater. 2003, 2, 678.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434 © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FEATURE ARTICLE
[17] S. Verlaak, D. Cheyns, M. Debucquoy, V. Arkhipov, P. Heremans,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 85, 2405.
[18] J. Zaumseil, C. L. Donley, J.-S. Kim, R. H. Friend, H. Sirringhaus,
Adv. Mater. 2006, 18, 2708.
[19] C. L. Donley, J. Zaumseil, J. W. Andreasen, M. M. Nielsen, H. Sirrin-
ghaus, R. H. Friend, J.-S. Kim, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 12 890.
[21] M. Ahles, A. Hepp, R. Schmechel, H. von Seggern, Appl. Phys. Lett.
2004, 84, 428.
[22] T. Sakanoue, E. Fujiwara, R. Yamada, H. Tada, Appl. Phys. Lett.
2004, 84, 3037.
[23] T. Sakanoue, E. Fujiwara, R. Yamada, H. Tada, Chem. Lett. 2005, 4.
[24] E. C. P. Smits, S. Setayesh, T. D. Anthopoulos, M. Buechel,
W. Nijssen, R. Coehoorn, P. W. M. Blom, B. de Boer, D. M. de Leeuw,
Adv. Mater. 2007, 19, 734.
[25] K. Yamane, H. Yanagi, A. Sawamoto, S. Hotta, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007,
90, 162 108.
[26] J. E. Anthony, Chem. Rev. 2006, 106, 5028.
[27] A. Hepp, H. Heil, W. Weise, M. Ahles, R. Schmechel, H. von Seggern,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 91, 157 406.
[28] a) D. J. Gundlach, J. A. Nichols, L. Zhou, T. N. Jackson, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2002, 80, 2925. b) R. W. I. de Boer, A. F. Morpurgo, T. M. Klap-
wijk, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 83, 4345. c) J. Kalinowski, J. Godlewski,
R. Signerski, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 1976, 33, 247. d) J. Kalinowski, in
Organic Electroluminescence (Ed: Z. H. Kafafi), CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis group, Boca Raton, FL 2005.
[29] F. Cicoira, C. Santato, F. Dinelli, M. Murgia, M. A. Loi, F. Biscarini,
R. Zamboni, P. Heremans, M. Muccini, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2005, 15,
375.
[30] C. Santato, R. Capelli, M. A. Loi, M. Murgia, F. Cicoira, V. A. L.
Roy, P. Stallinga, R. Zamboni, C. Rost, S. Karg, M. Muccini, Synth.
Met. 2004, 146, 329.
[31] J. A. Venables, G. D. T. Spiller, M. Hanbücken, Rep. Prog. Phys. 1984,
47, 399.
[32] C. Santato, F. Cicoira, P. Cosseddu, A. Bonfiglio, P. Bellutti, R. Zam-
boni, M. Muccini, F. Rosei, A. Mantoux, P. Doppelt, Appl. Phys. Lett.
2006, 88, 163 511.
[33] E. J. Meijer, C. Detcheverry, P. J. Baesjou, E. van Veenendaal, D. M.
de Leeuw, T. M. Klapwijk, J. Appl. Phys. 2003, 93, 4831.
[34] The adhesion layer consisted of a self-assembled monolayer of [HS–
(CH2)3–Si–(OCH3)3], (3-mercaptopropyltrimethyloxysilane (MPTMS).
[35] J. Reynaert, D. Cheyns, D. Janssen, R. Muller, V. Arkhipov, J. Genoe,
G. Borghs, P. Heremans, J. Appl. Phys. 2005, 97, 114 501.
[36] Q. Pei, G. Yu, C. Zhang, Y. Yang, A. J. Heeger, Science 1995, 269,
1086.
[37] A. Hepp, H. Heil, R. Schmechel, H. von Seggern, Adv. Eng. Mater.
2005, 7, 957.
[38] C. Santato, I. Manunza, A. Bonfiglio, F. Cicoira, P. Cosseddu, R. Zam-
boni, M. Muccini, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 86, 141 106.
[39] A. Bonfiglio, F. Mameli, O. Sanna, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2002, 82, 3550.
[40] T. Oyamada, H. Uchiuzou, S. Akiyama, Y. Oku, N. Shimoji, K. Mat-
sushige, H. Sasabe, C. Adachi, J. Appl. Phys. 2005, 98, 074 506.
[41] M. Pope, C. E. Swenberg, in Electronic Processes in Organic Crystals
and Polymers, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK 1999,
Ch. 3.
[42] Devices with L 10, 3, 1, 0.6 to 0.4 lm were fabricated using for S/D
electrodes Cr (0.5 nm)/Au(50 nm), MgAu alloy (1:1:, 20 nm)/Au
(30 nm), Al(20 nm)/Au(30 nm), Cr(1 nm)/YAu alloy(1:1, 20 nm)/
Au(30 nm), MgAl alloy(1:1, 20 nm)/Au (30 nm)].
[43] T. Oyamada, H. Sasabe, Y. Oku, N. Shimoji, C. Adachi, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2006, 88, 093 514.
[44] a) G. Barbarella, M. Melucci, G. Sotgiu, Adv. Mater. 2005, 17, 1581. b)
I. F. Perepichka, D. F. Perepichka, H. Meng, F. Wudl, Adv. Mater.
2005, 17, 2281.
[45] F. Cicoira, C. Santato, M. Melucci, L. Favaretto, M. Gazzano, M. Muc-
cini, G. Barbarella, Adv. Mater. 2006, 18, 169.
[46] T. Ozturk, E. Ertas, O. Mert, Tetrahedron 2005, 61, 11 055.
www.afm-journal.de 3433
 F. Cicoira and C. Santato/Organic Light Emitting Field Effect Transistors
FEATURE ARTICLE
[47] N. Karl, in Organic Electronic Materials (Eds: R. Farchioni, G. Gros-
so) Springer, Berlin, Germany 2001, Ch. 6.
[48] K. Nakamura, M. Ichikawa, R. Fushiki, T. Kamikawa, M. Inoue,
T. Koyama, Y. Taniguchi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2005, 44, L1367.
[49] The HOMO and LUMO of BP3T lay at 5.1 and 2.8 eV. The reported
work function of Al and MgAg are 4.3 and 3.7 eV.
[50] T. Oyamada, H. Sasabe, C. Adachi, S. Okuyama, N. Shimoji, K. Mat-
sushige, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 86, 093 505.
[51] T. Kono, D. Kumaki, J. Nishida, T. Sakanoue, M. Kakita, H. Tada,
S. Tokito, Y. Yamashita, Chem. Mater. 2007, 19, 1218.
[52] T. Oyamada, C.-H. Chang, T.-C. Chao, F.-C. Fang, C.-C. Wu, K.-T.
Wong, H. Sasabe, C. Adachi, J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 108.
[53] a) C.-C. Wu, T.-L. Liu, W.-Y. Hung, Y.-T. Lin, K.-T. Wong, R.-T. Chen,
Y.-M. Chen, Y.-Y. Chien, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 3710. b) C.-C.
Wu, T.-L. Liu, Y. Lin, W. Hung, T. H. Ke, K.-T.Wong, T.-C. Chao,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 85, 1172.
[54] S. E. Shaheen, C. J. Brabec, N. S. Sariciftci, F. Padinger, T. Fromherz,
J. C. Hummelen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, 78, 841.
[55] C. Rost, S. Karg, W. Riess, M. A. Loi, M. Murgia, M. Muccini, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 2004, 85, 1613.
[56] M. A. Loi, C. Rost-Bretsch, M. Murgia, S. Karg, W. Riess, M. Muccini,
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2006, 16, 41.
[57] The decay of pure P13 films is biexponential with a first decay time of
s1 = 350 ps and a tail with decay time of s2 = 1.6 ns. Decay times up to
s1 = 20 ps and s2 = 100 ps were observed in co-evaporated films with
increasing percentages of a-T5.
[58] a) F. Dinelli, R. Capelli, M. A. Loi, M. Murgia M. Muccini, A. Fac-
chetti, T. Marks, Adv. Mater. 2006, 18, 1416. b) R. Capelli, F. Dinelli,
M. A. Loi, M. Murgia, R. Zamboni, M. Muccini, J. Phys. Condens.
Matter 2006, 18, S2127.
[59] S. De Vusser, S. Schols, S. Steudel, S. Verlaak, J. Genoe, W. D. Ooster-
baan, L. Lusten, D. Vanderzande, P. Heremans, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006,
89, 223 504.
[60] K. Kudo, S. Tanaka, M. Iizuka, M. Nakamura, Thin Solid Films 2003,
438, 330.
[61] K. Kudo, Curr. Appl. Phys. 2005, 5, 337.
[62] B. Park, H. Takezoe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 85, 1280.
[63] The ITO coated substrates were patterned to define the anode and
the gate with 30 lm spacing and 270 lm width, using standard photo-
lithographic techniques. The deposited organic layers consisted of an
hole injection layer of 4,4′,4″-tris[N-(3-methylphenyl)-N-phenyl-
______________________
3434 www.afm-journal.de © 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
amino]-triphenylamine (m-MTDATA), a hole transport layer of N,N′-
diphenyl-N,N′-bis(1-naphthyl)-(1,1′-biphenyl)-4,4′-diamine (NPD).
A layer of tris (8-quinolinolato) aluminum (Alq3) acted as electron
transport and green emissive layer. An Al:Li cathode layer was depos-
ited on top of the organic layers via thermal evaporation.
[64] K. Nakamura, T. Hata, A. Yoshizawa, K. Obata, H. Endo, K. Kudo,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 103 525.
[65] http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20061 115/123 652/.
[66] C. Di, G. Yu, Y. Liu, X. Xu, D. Wei, Y. Song, Y. Sun, Y. Wang, D. Zhu,
Adv. Funct. Mater., in press.
[67] J. A. Misewich, R. Martel, P. Avouris, J. C. Tsang, S. Heinze, J. Tersoff,
Science 2003, 300, 783.
[68] M. Freitag, J. Chen, J. Tersoff, J. C. Tsang, Q. Fu, J. Liu, P. Avouris,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93, 076 803.
[69] a) M. Freitag, V. Perebeinos, J. Chen, A. Stein, J. C. Tsang, J. A. Mise-
wich, R. Martel, P. Avouris, Nano Lett. 2004, 4, 1063. b) L. Marty,
E. Adam, L. Albert, R. Doyon, D. Ménard, R. Martel, Phys. Rev. Lett.
2006, 96, 136 803.
[70] P. Avouris, J. Chen, Mater. Today 2006, 9(10), 46.
[71] a) Y. Shen, A. R. Hosseini, M. H. Wong, G. G. Malliaras, Chem-
PhysChem 2004, 5, 16. b) M. J. Panzer, C. D. Frisbie, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2005, 127, 6960. c) A. Facchetti, M.-H. Yoon, T. J. Marks, Adv.
Mater. 2005, 17, 1705. d) H. Sirringhaus, Adv. Mater. 2005, 17, 2411.
[72] a) T. B. Singh, F. Meghdadi, S. Gunes, N. Marjanovic, F. Lang, G. Hor-
owitz, S. Bauer, N. S. Sariciftci, Adv. Mater. 2005, 17, 2315. b) T. B.
Singh, P. Senkarabacak, N. S. Sariciftci, A. Tanda, C. Lackner, R. Ha-
gelauer, G. Horowitz, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 033 512.
[73] T. Takahashi, T. Takenobu, J. Takeya, Y. Iwasa, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006,
88, 033 505.
[74] T. Toccoli, A. Pallaoro, N. Coppedé, S. Iannotta, F. De Angelis,
L. Mariucci, G. Fortunato, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 88, 132 106.
[75] P. S. Abtagir, Y. G. Ha, E. A. You, S. H. Jeong, H. S. Seo, J. H. Choi,
J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 23 918.
[76] a) N. Koch, A. Vollmer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 162 107. b) D. Ca-
hen, A. Kahn, E. Umbach, Mater. Today 2005, 8(7), 32.
[77] F. Cicoira, J. A. Miwa, M. Melucci, G. Barbarella, F. Rosei, Small
2006, 2, 1366.
[78] Q. Cao, Z.-T. Zhu, M. G. Lemaitre, M.-G. Xia, M. Shim, J. A. Rogers,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 88, 113 511.
[79] M. Berggren, D. Nilsson, N. D. Robinson, Nat. Mater. 2007, 6, 3.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 3421–3434