| Literature DB >> 35516930 |
Armands Ruduss1, Valdis Kokars1, Natalija Tetervenoka2, Aivars Vembris2, Kaspars Traskovskis1.
Abstract
Iridium(iii) complexes are the most frequently applied commercialized green and red emitters for organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays. Throughout years a significant research effort has been devoted to modify these compounds, in order to make them suitable for cost-effective solution-processing techniques, such as inkjet printing. To achieve this, the inherent tendency of the complex molecules to form poorly emissive aggregates needs to be suppressed. In many cases this has been achieved by an encapsulation of the iridium(iii) complex core with dendritic structures, composed of either passive or charge-transporting fragments. In order to validate this approach, we acquired three structural analogues of the conventional green emitter Ir(ppy)3, which possess gradually increasing sterical encumberment at the complex surface. Corresponding OLEDs were examined, with three distinctively different active emissive layer compositions in terms of charge transportation characteristics. The results show that in the all scenarios the unmodified Ir(ppy)3 outperforms the compounds with attached bulky groups. The in-device performance of the emitter is directly related to its charge trapping ability, which is being compromised in the presence of dendritic auxiliary substituents. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 35516930 PMCID: PMC9055592 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra04652c
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Scheme 1Synthesis of the investigated structural analogues of Ir(ppy)3.
Fig. 1UV-vis absorption and emission spectra of the compounds in THF.
Photophysical properties of the investigated emitters
| Compound | λmax em., nm |
|
|
|
| IP, eV | EA, eV | HOMO | LUMO | Δ | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ir(ppy)3 | 522 | 0.94/— | 1.7 | 5.5 | 0.35 | 5.15 | 2.85 | −5.06 | −1.47 | 2.85 | 2.66 |
| 1TPY | 525 | 0.91/0.01 | 1.8 | 5.1 | 0.50 | 5.17 | 2.95 | −5.15 | −1.57 | 2.83 | 2.63 |
| 2TPY | 525 | 0.90/0.03 | 1.7 | 5.3 | 0.58 | 5.21 | 2.95 | −5.24 | −1.66 | 2.84 | 2.64 |
| 3TPY | 525 | 0.93/0.08 | 1.8 | 5.2 | 0.38 | 5.24 | 2.92 | −5.32 | −1.74 | 2.85 | 2.65 |
Measured in deoxygenated THF/amorphous films.
Radiative decay rate kr = ΦPL/τ.
Nonradiative decay rate knr = (1 − ΦPL)/τ.
Calculated values.
Fig. 2Φ PL values of spin-coated films composed of PVK host and Ir(ppy)3-based emitters at different emitter mass fractions. For TR-functionalized compounds only the mass of the emitter core is counted towards the emitter mass content.
Fig. 3(a) Calculated configuration and energies of HOMO and LUMO orbitals. (b) Calculated electron density difference maps for the lowest singlet and triplet excitations. Electron transfer proceeds from the red to blue regions.
Fig. 4OLED characteristics for devices with three different composition EMLs. (a) Voltage–current density (filled circle) and luminance (empty circle) plots. (b) Luminance–current efficiency (filled circle) and power efficiency plots. (c) Energy diagram and the used materials featuring experimentally obtained IP and EA values.
Characteristics of OLEDs with PVK, PVK : OXD-7 (70 : 30 wt%) or PVK : OXD-7 (30 : 70 wt%) EML host materials
| Compound |
|
|
|
| Roll-off | CIE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Ir(ppy)3 | 4.5 | 6.8 | 3.9 | 2446 | 44 | 0.32, 0.62 |
| 1TPY | 4.5 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 844 | 71 | 0.35, 0.58 |
| 2TPY | 6 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 127 | — | 0.32, 0.62 |
| 3TPY | 7 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 136 | — | 0.34, 0.59 |
|
| ||||||
| Ir(ppy)3 | 3.5 | 7.8 | 4.4 | 2983 | 6 | 0.31, 0.63 |
| 1TPY | 4 | 6.9 | 3.7 | 3308 | 10 | 0.31, 0.63 |
| 2TPY | 4 | 7.3 | 3.9 | 2692 | 27 | 0.32, 0.62 |
| 3TPY | 3.5 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 1794 | 10 | 0.31, 0.63 |
|
| ||||||
| Ir(ppy)3 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 1048 | 27 | 0.30, 0.63 |
| 1TPY | 3.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 638 | 23 | 0.31, 0.62 |
| 2TPY | 3.5 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 680 | 28 | 0.32, 0.62 |
| 3TPY | 4 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 560 | 25 | 0.32, 0.62 |
Turn-on voltage.
Current efficiency.
Power efficiency.
Maximal luminance.
Current efficiency drop between the maximal value and the value at the highest luminance.
Measured at maximal brightness.