4.8 Article

Highly Efficient Deep-Blue Electroluminescence from a Charge Transfer Emitter with Stable Donor Skeleton

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 7331-7338

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b14638

关键词

phenanthro[9,10-d]imidazole; donor acceptor emitter; high efficiency; high stability; deep-blue OLED

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [T23-713/11]
  2. Guang-dong Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program [2013C090, KYPT20141013150545116]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of China [61575136, 21572152]
  4. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2016YFB0401002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organic materials containing arylamines have to been widely used as hole-transporting materials as well as emitters in organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs). However, it has been pointed out that the C-N bonds in these arylamines can easily suffer from degradation in excited states, especially in deep-blue OLEDs. In this work, phenanthro [9,10-d]imidazole (PI) is proposed as a potential donor with higher stability than those of arylamines. Using PI as the donor, a donor acceptor type deep-blue fluorophore 1-phenyl-2-(4-(1-phenyl-1H-benzo[d]imidazol-2-yl-[1,1':4',1-terphenyl]-4-yl)1H-phenanthro[9,10-d]imidazole (BITPI) is designed and synthesized. Results from UV-aging test on neat films of BITPI and other three arylamine compounds demonstrate that PI is indeed a more stable donor comparing to common arylamines. An OLED using BITPI as an emitter exhibits good device performances (EQE over 7%) with stable deep-blue emission (color index: (0.15, 0.13)) and longer operation lifetime than the similarly structured device using arylamine-based emitter. Single-organic layer device based on BITPI also shows superior performances, which are comparable to the best results from the arylamine-based donor acceptor emitters, suggesting that PI is a stable donor with good hole transport/injection capability.

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

4.8
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