4.8 Article

A Strategy for Architecture Design of Crystalline Perovskite Light-Emitting Diodes with High Performance

期刊

ADVANCED MATERIALS
卷 30, 期 25, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adma.201800251

关键词

insulator-perovskite-insulator; LED; perovskite; tunneling

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11574248]
  2. National Key RAMP
  3. D Program of China [2016YFB0400702]
  4. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2016JM6072]
  5. Ph.D. Programs Foundation of Ministry of Education of China [20130201110065]
  6. International Cooperation by Shaanxi [2015KW-008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All present designs of perovskite light-emitting diodes (PeLEDs) stem from polymer light-emitting diodes (PLEDs) or perovskite solar cells. The optimal structure of PeLEDs can be predicted to differ from PLEDs due to the different fluorescence dynamics and crystallization between perovskite and polymer. Herein, a new design strategy and conception is introduced, insulator-perovskite-insulator (IPI) architecture tailored to PeLEDs. As examples of FAPbBr(3) and MAPbBr(3), it is experimentally shown that the IPI structure effectively induces charge carriers into perovskite crystals, blocks leakage currents via pinholes in the perovskite film, and avoids exciton quenching simultaneously. Consequently, as for FAPbBr(3), a 30-fold enhancement in the current efficiency of IPI-structured PeLEDs compared to a control device with poly(3,4ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene sulfonate) as hole-injection layer is achieved from 0.64 to 20.3 cd A(-1)while the external quantum efficiency is increased from 0.174% to 5.53%. As the example of CsPbBr3, compared with the control device, both current efficiency and lifetime of IPI-structured PeLEDs are improved from 1.42 and 4 h to 9.86 cd A(-1) and 96 h. This IPI architecture represents a novel strategy for the design of light-emitting didoes based on various perovskites with high efficiencies and stabilities.

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