Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Binary blends of the acceptor conjugated polymer poly(2,2'-(3,3'-dioctyl-2,2'-bithienylene)-6,6'-bis(4-phenylenequinoline)) (POBTPQ) with donor conjugated polymer poly(2-methoxy-5-(2'-ethylhexyloxy)-1,4-phenylenevinylene) (MEH−PPV) or poly(3-octylthiophene) (POT) were nanophase-separated and observed to exhibit efficient electroluminescence in light-emitting-diodes. The 90−120 nm phase-separated morphology of MEH−PPV-containing blends was characteristic of dimixing by spinodal decomposition whereas that of POT-containing blends consisted of nucleation and growth type spherical domains (50−400 nm) dispersed in a matrix. Efficient Förster energy transfer was observed in both blend systems. Voltage-tunable orange-red ↔ yellow ↔ green electroluminescence was observed in the POBTPQ:MEH−PPV blend diodes at a composition of 10−80 wt % MEH−PPV. Only red emission characteristic of POT was observed from POBTPQ:POT blend devices due to efficient energy transfer from POBTPQ. Large enhancements in performance of the bipolar blend light-emitting diodes were observed compared to that of the homopolymer diodes. The compositional dependence of luminance and external quantum efficiency of the blend devices was very different for the MEH−PPV and POT blends, reflecting the difference in morphology. Electric-field-induced photoluminescence quenching confirmed the bipolar charge transport in the blends and associated improved electron−hole recombination and device efficiencies. These results demonstrate that efficient electroluminescence can be achieved in bipolar blends of conjugated polymers and that nanophase-separated morphology is essential to voltage-tunable multicolor light emission in blend devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alam et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: