2020
DOI: 10.1002/adom.202000838
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accurate Efficiency Measurements of Organic Light‐Emitting Diodes via Angle‐Resolved Spectroscopy

Abstract: color-tunable emission, they are particularly attractive for applications in self-emissive flat-panel displays. [2,3] Due to the compatibility of OLED technology with low-cost production approaches, such as solutionbased printing methods, OLEDs are also considered for large-area, thin, lightweight, and glare-free ambient illumination. [4-7] In the future, commercial devices may also exploit the fact that OLEDs are compatible with a range of different substrates, including mechanically flexible ones. [8-10] The… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
36
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Specifically, we find that the TMPE‐OH LEC (with d AM = 150 nm) exhibits a >100% higher forward luminance and a 60% higher power efficacy than the TMPE‐OC LEC (Figure 2a,b). The TMPE‐OH LEC further delivers an emission intensity that is essentially independent of the viewing angle (as an ideal Lambertian emitter), [ 20 ] whereas the TMPE‐OC LEC instead delivers its strongest emission intensity at larger viewing angles (Figure 2c,g). Moreover, the forward EL spectrum is also distinctly different, with the spectral envelope of the TMPE‐OC LEC being redshifted with respect to that of the TMPE‐OH LEC (compare solid lines in Figure 2d,h).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, we find that the TMPE‐OH LEC (with d AM = 150 nm) exhibits a >100% higher forward luminance and a 60% higher power efficacy than the TMPE‐OC LEC (Figure 2a,b). The TMPE‐OH LEC further delivers an emission intensity that is essentially independent of the viewing angle (as an ideal Lambertian emitter), [ 20 ] whereas the TMPE‐OC LEC instead delivers its strongest emission intensity at larger viewing angles (Figure 2c,g). Moreover, the forward EL spectrum is also distinctly different, with the spectral envelope of the TMPE‐OC LEC being redshifted with respect to that of the TMPE‐OH LEC (compare solid lines in Figure 2d,h).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to differences in hardware sensitivity to specific incoming light seen in Figure a, a hardware-specific, wavelength-specific factor ( C ) is required for all QE measurements in the following equation: ,, where S (λ) is a background-subtracted, normalized true emission spectrum of the incoming light (Figure c, black trace) and Q (λ) is the calibrated QE of the PMT in this study (Figure b).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[93][94][95] ARLS can refer to electroluminescence, if one measures the emission from an OLED, or photoluminescence, if this quantity is measured from an optically excited EML. [96,97] Importantly, VASE and ARLS provide information about the orientation of different transition dipoles in the EML. A single emitter molecule can have more than one TDM of absorption and emission, and their orientation is not necessarily the same, depending on the states involved in the transition.…”
Section: Quantifying the Orientation Of The Emitter Transition Dipolementioning
confidence: 99%