4.6 Article

Highly thermal stable electron-transporting materials using triptycene derivatives for OLEDs

期刊

ORGANIC ELECTRONICS
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.orgel.2020.106013

关键词

Electron transporting materials; Thermal stability; Triptycene; Pyridine; OLEDs

资金

  1. Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MOST 109-2636-E-007-021]
  3. National Center for High-Performance Computing of Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly thermal stable two-electron transport materials based on triptycene containing phenyl pyridine derivatives were efficiently designed and synthesized using Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reactions. Among them, TPP demonstrated high triplet energy gap, glass transition temperature, deep HOMO level, and good electron mobility, leading to significantly higher external quantum efficiency in green phosphorescent OLED compared to TmPyPB. Additionally, TPP-based devices exhibited superior thermal stability and performance even after thermal annealing at 100 degrees C for 30 minutes, while TmPyPB-based devices showed significant degradation under identical conditions.
Highly thermal stable two-electron transport materials (ETMs) based on the triptycene containing phenyl pyridine derivatives were designed and synthesized by Suzuki-Miyaura coupling reactions efficiently. Among them, TPP shows a high triplet energy gap (E-T = 2.85 eV), high glass transition temperature (T-g = 142 degrees C), deep HOMO level (7.0 eV) and good electron mobility. TPP performed as ETM for the green phosphorescent OLED was achieved high external quantum efficiency (EQE) compared to that of the device with TmPyPB as ETM. Moreover, thermal stability was demonstrated after thermal annealing of the device at 100 degrees C for 30 min, resulting in the TPP-based device reached a high EQE of 13.6% at a luminance of 100 cd m(-2), while that of TmPyPB-based device have dramatically degraded under otherwise identical conditions.

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

4.6
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