4.6 Article

Ultrastable red-emitting phosphor-in-glass for superior high-power artificial plant growth LEDs

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY C
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 1738-1745

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7tc05250b

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21671070]
  2. Project for Construction of High-level University in Guangdong Province
  3. Teamwork Projects - Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [S2013030012842]
  4. Guangzhou Science & Technology Project [201704030086]
  5. Open Project Fund from Key Laboratory of Advanced of Materials of Yunnan Province [2018KF01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultrastable red-emitting phosphor-in-glass (PiG) consisting of 3.5MgO center dot 0.5MgF(2)center dot GeO2:Mn4+ (MMG: Mn4+) phosphor in a glass matrix was prepared for superior artificial plant growth LEDs (PGLs). These obtained PiG plates show a thermal conductivity of 1.671 W m(-1)K(-1) and an external quantum efficiency of 27.5%, which provides the strong foundation for the application in high-power artificial plant growth LEDs (PGLs). Furthermore, a proof-of-concept PGL using 36 pieces of the title PiG plate and 420 nm-blue LED chip was fabricated. The combination of similar to 420 nm from chip and the similar to 659 nm chip from the MMG: Mn4+ phosphor provide a well-matched spectrum with the absorption bands of photosynthetic pigments and the phytochrome (P-R and P-FR) of most green plants. As expected, the as-fabricated PGL-treated milk-Chinese cabbage cultured in the indoor plant factory showed that after 15 day-irradiation, the plant biomass was nearly 48.9% greater in treated sample than those cultured using the general R-B LED lamps. Further analysis also demonstrated that promotive effect can also be obtained in the level of ascorbic acid, soluble protein, soluble sugar and total chlorophyll. The PiG strategy presented in this paper afforded superior high-power artificial plant growth LEDs, which are crucial in the application of ecological agriculture.

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