Communications
ox
1=2
for the devices exhibited no significant change on variation of
consequence of the lower E value of 1. As the HOMO of 1
the current and operating bias voltages from 5 V to 12 V
(Figure 2a), and both of the devices I and II show a sharp EL
peak at 508 nm. The turn-on voltages (defined as the bias at a
is positioned higher in energy than that of 2 (relative to the
CBP level of 6.3 eV), the efficiency of recombination by
sequential charge trapping is increased in 1. The performance
parameters of device I (maximum external quantum effi-
ciency (hext): 11.6% photons/electron, luminance efficiency
(hL): 38 cdAÀ1, power efficiency (hP): 24 LmWÀ1) clearly
outweigh those of a prototypical green-light-emitting device
of ITO/NPB/fac-[Ir(ppy)3]:CBP/BCP/Alq3/Mg:Ag (maxi-
mum hext: 7.5%, hL: 26 cdAÀ1, hP: 19 LmWÀ1) in a device of
similar structure, and this represents a tremendous improve-
ment of about 55% in the hext value.[1a] The maximum
luminance of device I is 14730 cdmÀ2 at 12 V, with the full
width at half maximum (fwhm) only 56 nm at 8 V. With 2 as
the dopant, device II has
a maximum brightness of
19360 cdmÀ2 and a luminance efficiency of approximately
22 cdAÀ1, which corresponds to a hext value of 6.7% and a
hP value of approximately 13 LmWÀ1. We can surmise that it
is probably the carbazolyl moiety that brings about a more
balanced electron and hole recombination in the host matrix
of CBP, and/or that the rigid carbazole spacers play a crucial
role in alleviating the self-quenching of the [Ir(X-Cz-py)3]
luminophores, and consequently increase the emission effi-
ciency. Typical efficiency roll-off at higher currents, attribut-
able to a combination of triplet–triplet annihilation and field-
induced quenching effects, is also observed here, but at the
reference luminance of 100 cdmÀ2 (6.5 V) the efficiencies
remain high at 10.6%, 35 cdAÀ1, and 17 LmWÀ1 for device I.
These values correspond to a loss of only 8% from the
maximum hext value. Likewise, a loss of 7% was noted in the
hext value for device II. Although the performance of these
devices has yet to be optimized, it is our intention to highlight
the potential merits of this prominent class of carbazole-based
Ir phosphors in high-efficiency OLED applications.
In summary, we have reported some triplet-harvesting
carbazolyl-substituted multicomponent iridium complexes,
and this approach can offer advantages in terms of lowering
the first IP, facilitating hole transport, and enhancing EL
efficiencies relative to the prototypical fac-[Ir(ppy)3]. Given
the ease of synthesis and performance advantages inherent to
these carbazole-based phosphors, extension of the system to
other emission colors warrants further examination.
~
~
*
Figure 2. a) The EL spectra ofdevice I at 5 ( ), 8 ( ), 10 ( ), and
*
12 V ( ) and b) current–voltage–luminance (J-V-L) characteristics for
device I.
brightness of 1 cdmÀ2) are 4.4 and 4.8 V for devices I and II,
respectively, with the CIE color coordinates being (0.24, 0.63)
and (0.27, 0.60), which correspond to the bright green region
of the chromaticity diagram. There is a close resemblance
between the EL and PL spectra in each case.
Phosphors 1 and 2 show outstanding EL performance,
presumably because of the short tP value and good hole-
transporting properties of carbazole, which may help diminish
the quenching of the triplet exciton. Figure 2b shows the
current density–voltage–luminance (J-V-L) curve of device I.
Complex 1 was shown to be a more efficient electrophosphor
than 2, which suggests that the F substituents are rather
unimportant here in relieving intermolecular interactions in
Received: July 20, 2006
Published online: October 24, 2006
Keywords: carbazoles · iridium · optical properties ·
.
phosphorescence · structure elucidation
[1] a) M. A. Baldo, S. Lamansky, P. E. Burrows, M. E. Thompson,
S. R. Forrest, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, 4; b) M. A. Baldo, M. E.
Thompson, S. R. Forrest, Nature 2000, 403, 750.
[2] a) X. Gong, M. R. Robinson, J. C. Ostrowki, D. Moses, G. C.
Bazan, A. J. Heeger, Adv. Mater. 2002, 14, 581; b) A. Köhler, J. S.
Wilson, R. H. Friend, Adv. Mater. 2002, 14, 701; c) J. G. C. Veinot,
T. J. Marks, Acc. Chem. Res. 2005, 38, 632; d) S. R. Forrest, Org.
Electron. 2003, 4, 45.
À
the Ir complex, as is commonly the case in [Ir(C N)3]-type
compounds with simpler ligands.[3k,l] Moreover, since 2 has a
T1 lifetime comparable to that of 1, its poor EL performance
may be attributed to its lower FP value relative to that of 1.
The difference in the efficiency for 1 and 2 are also a
[3] a) E. Holder, B. M. W. Langeveld, U. S. Schubert, Adv. Mater.
2005, 17, 1109; b) C.-L. Li, Y.-J. Su, Y.-T. Tao, P.-T. Chou, C.-H.
ꢀ 2006 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 7800 –7803