Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A series of 1,8‐naphthyridine derivatives is synthesized and their electron‐transporting/injecting (ET/EI) properties are investigated via a multilayered electrophosphorescent organic light‐emitting device (OLED) using fac‐tris(2‐phenylpyridine)iridium [Ir(ppy)3] as a green phosphorescent emitter doped into a 4,4′‐N,N′‐dicarbazolebiphenyl (CBP) host with 4,4′‐bis[N‐(1‐naphthyl)‐N‐phenylamino]biphenyl (a‐NPD) as the hole‐transporting layer, and poly(arylene ether sulfone) containing tetraphenylbenzidine (TPDPES) doped with tris(4‐bromophenyl)ammonium hexachloroantimonate (TBPAH) as the hole‐injecting layer. The turn‐on voltage of the device is 2.5 V using 2,7‐bis[3‐(2‐phenyl)‐1,8‐naphthyridinyl]‐9,9‐dimethylfluorene (DNPF), lower than that of 3.0 V for the device using a conventional ET material. The maximum current efficiency (CE) and power efficiency (PE) of the DNPF device are much higher than those of a conventional device. With the aid of a hole‐blocking (HB) and exciton‐blocking layer of bathocuproine (BCP), 13.2–13.7% of the maximum external quantum efficiency (EQE) and a maximum PE of 50.2–54.5 lm W−1 are obtained using the naphthyridine derivatives; these values are comparable with or even higher than the 13.6% for conventional ET material. The naphthyridine derivatives show high thermal stabilities, glass‐transition temperatures much higher than that of aluminum(III) bis(2‐methyl‐8‐quinolinato)‐4‐phenylphenolate (BAlq), and decomposition temperatures of 510–518 °C, comparable to or even higher than those of Alq3.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiao et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: