4.6 Article

Distinguishing the respective determining factors for spectral broadening and concentration quenching in multiple resonance type TADF emitter systems

期刊

MATERIALS HORIZONS
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 2226-2232

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2mh00511e

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research & Development Program of China [2020YFA0714601, 2020YFA0714604]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52130304, 51821002, 52003185, 52003186]
  3. Suzhou Key Laboratory of Functional Nano & Soft Materials, Collaborative Innovation Center of Suzhou Nano Science Technology
  4. 111 Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work investigates the spectral broadening and concentration quenching issues in multiple resonance (MR) type thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitters. It finds that the spectral broadening is mainly caused by excimer formation, while the concentration quenching is mainly caused by triplet exciton annihilation. This understanding of the aggregated behaviors of MR emitters provides new insights for the development of high-performance MR-TADF emitters with low concentration sensitivities.
Multiple resonance (MR) type thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) emitters have attracted much recent attention due to their narrow emission spectra and high photoluminescence quantum yields (PLQYs). Spectral broadening and concentration quenching at high doping concentrations are two issues currently limiting the development of MR-TADF emitters. However, the origins of these have not been fully clarified so far. In this work, by investigating emitters with the same MR cores but peripheral groups of different steric types, we distinguished that the spectral broadening and concentration quenching are mainly caused by excimer formation and triplet exciton annihilation, respectively. This understanding on aggregated behaviors of MR emitters provides new insight for the further development of high-performance MR-TADF emitters with low concentration sensitivities.

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