4.2 Article

Transparent oxide/metal/oxide trilayer electrode for use in top-emitting organic light-emitting diodes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHOTONICS FOR ENERGY
卷 1, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.3592886

关键词

organic light-emitting diode; transparent electrode; metal oxide; top-emitting organic light emitting diodes; sheet resistance

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy Solid State Lighting Program [09EE0000990]
  2. Florida Energy Systems Consortium
  3. Samsung SDI. Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most commonly used transparent electrode, indium-tin oxide (ITO), is costly and requires methods of deposition that are highly destructive to organic materials when it is deposited on top of the organic layers in top-emitting organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs). Here we have employed a trilayer electrode structure consisting of a thin layer of metal sandwiched between two MoO3 layers, which can be deposited through vacuum thermal evaporation without much damage to the organic active layers. Such MoO3/Au/MoO3 trilayer electrodes have a maximum transmittance of nearly 90% at 600 nm and a sheet resistance of <10 ohms per square (Omega/sq) with a 10-nm thick Au intermediate layer. Using these trilayers as the top transparent anode, we have fabricated top-emitting OLEDs based on either a fluorescent or phosphorescent emitter, and observed nearly identical emission spectra and similar external quantum efficiencies as compared to the more conventional bottom-emitting OLEDs based on the commercial ITO anode. The power efficiency of the top-emitting devices is 20% to 30% lower than the bottom-emitting devices due to the somewhat inferior charge injection in the top-emitting devices. The performance and emission characteristics of these devices indicate that this trilayer structure is a promising candidate as a transparent anode in top-emitting OLEDs. (C) 2011 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). [DOI: 10.1117/1.3592886]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据