A comparison of the effect of joule heating vs thermal annealing on the morphology of typical hole transport layers in organic light emitting devices

It is well-known that hole transport layers (HTLs) in organic light emitting devices (OLEDs) are more sensitive to morphological changes than other organic layers due to the lower glass transition temperatures. A high operational temperature can alter the HTL morphology, severely impacting OLED performance and stability. Although joule heating is a known factor affecting OLED stability during operation, its effect in experimental studies is typically simulated through thermal annealing of the devices rather than applying current. In this work, a comparison of the effects of joule heating vs thermal annealing on the morphological stability of N,N'-di(1-naphthyl)-N,N'-diphenylbenzidine (NPB) and N,N′-Dicarbazolyl-4,4′-biphenyl (CBP) HTLs and the impact this has on OLED performance is investigated. While thermal annealing of an OLED can be used as an approximation of joule heating, the temperature distribution profile of the OLED is different under the two stress conditions and thus can impact the morphology of the HTL differently. However, joule heating introduces a confounding factor whereby the OLEDs experience intrinsic degradation by the flow of current, aside from thermal stress. Therefore, in this work, joule heating is studied in unipolar devices that comprise solely of the HTL. Device JVL and morphology as a function of temperature for both joule heating and thermal annealing are presented as a means to evaluate stability and performance.

[1]  Stephen R. Forrest,et al.  Hole Transporting Materials with High Glass Transition Temperatures for Use in Organic Light-Emitting Devices , 1998 .

[2]  Franky So,et al.  Degradation Mechanisms in Small‐Molecule and Polymer Organic Light‐Emitting Diodes , 2010, Advanced materials.

[3]  Li-Jun Wan,et al.  Direct evidence of molecular aggregation and degradation mechanism of organic light-emitting diodes under joule heating: an STM and photoluminescence study. , 2005, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[4]  Hany Aziz,et al.  Degradation Phenomena in Small-Molecule Organic Light-Emitting Devices , 2004 .

[5]  C.W. Tang,et al.  Organic Electroluminescent Devices , 1995, IEEE/LEOS 1995 Digest of the LEOS Summer Topical Meetings. Flat Panel Display Technology.

[6]  Tae Hee Kim,et al.  Growth and characterization of thin Cu-phthalocyanine films on MgO(001) layer for organic light-emitting diodes , 2012, Nanoscale Research Letters.

[7]  John K. Borchardt,et al.  Developments in organic displays , 2004 .

[8]  Jwo-Huei Jou,et al.  Enhancing the performance of organic light-emitting devices by selective thermal treatment , 2005 .

[9]  Bin Sun,et al.  Exciton–Polaron‐Induced Aggregation of Wide‐Bandgap Materials and its Implication on the Electroluminescence Stability of Phosphorescent Organic Light‐Emitting Devices , 2014 .

[10]  Chung-Chih Wu,et al.  3-(9-Carbazolyl)carbazoles and 3,6-Di(9-carbazolyl)carbazoles as Effective Host Materials for Efficient Blue Organic Electrophosphorescence** , 2007 .

[11]  Xiaoyuan Hou,et al.  Bubble formation in organic light-emitting diodes , 2000 .