INVESTIGATION OF DNA NUCLEOBASES FOR BIO-ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODES
A DISSERTATION THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PH.D.) OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
ELIOT FRENCH GOMEZ
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTING SYSTEMS
COMMITTEE CHAIR: ANDREW J. STECKL, PH.D.
SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 13TH, 2015
ABSTRACT
Natural electronics is the field that incorporates biological molecules in organic electronic devices to create inexpensive, renewable, performance-enhancing, and environmentally safe alternatives for the electronics industry. Natural DNA, for example, has been incorporated as an electron blocking layer (EBL) to improve device efficiency and luminance in organic light emitting diodes (OLED). OLEDs require a diverse set of materials with optical and electrical properties that meet the rigorous design requirements of the device. DNA, being one of the few materials in OLEDs, lays the groundwork for other natural material to be explored.
The nucleic acid bases from the DNA and the RNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, uracil) are excellent options for the next steps in natural OLED electronics. The bases form thin films directly by thermal evaporation, unlike DNA that requires a surfactant and solution processing. The bases were shown to have a wide range of opto/electronic properties such as refractive index, dielectric constant, resistivity, and electron/hole transport making them a good candidate for OLEDs. The thin film properties and performance of the bases were explored by depositing the individual bases as the EBL and hole blocking layer (HBL) in place of conventional OLED material. It was shown that adenine and guanine performed well as EBLs, exceeding the efficiency of the baseline device (52 vs 39 cd/A), which contained non-biological material. It was also demonstrated that OLEDs with very high efficiency can be obtained using a thin layer of thymine as an EBL, resulting in a peak efficiency of 76 cd/A and a higher maximum luminance (132,000 cd/m2) than the baseline OLED (100,000 cd/m2). In the hole blocking layer, uracil performed well by transporting electrons and blocking hole transport to provide the highest emission efficiency of the bases.
The final set of experiments demonstrated that adenine increased the hole injection of gold electrodes due to the natural affinity the base has with gold, corresponding to a 4-7× increase in luminance. Thin film gold is an attractive electrode alternative for OLEDs on plant-based cellulose substrates since it does not require high temperature annealing and has high conductivity. Gold cannot be directly evaporated on the rough cellulose substrate, therefore, a template stripping
i
procedure was employed using epoxy to lift off the gold electrode from Si wafers, in combination with adenine as a hole injector to yield high quality and efficient OLEDs. Nucleic acid bases are a diverse set materials that result in performance-enhancing, inexpensive, and natural-based OLEDs.
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Good work is only accomplished with the support of great people, and there are many I am indebted to over the course of my graduate studies. I would like to thank my academic advisor, Dr. Andrew Steckl who has been incredibly supportive guiding me up and down every mountain of this journey with persistence, diligence, and the best intentions to see me succeed. Dr. James Grote whose financial support and knowledgeable direction made this project possible. I would like to thank my dissertation committee who have, not only provided feedback and discussion on my work, but have been inspirational professors throughout my academic career at UC. At the Nanoelectronics Laboratory, I am grateful to my colleagues past and present, especially former student, Dr. Hans Spaeth, who raised me up from a young graduate student to where I am today. Other colleagues, Vishak Venkatraman, Dr. Han You, Adam Zocco, and Sumit Purandare who have provided good discussion, aided in experiments, and were good friends during my time in the lab. I would also like to thank Dr. Necati Keval in Chemistry whose friendship and help over the years has been most appreciated.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and love for my wife, Melanie, who has sacrificed so much over these past years to get where I am now. She has truly been the solid foundation behind this work and has been my greatest support. I would like to thank my parents, Elias and Sarah, who have supported me unwaveringly both financially and in spirit on my academic endeavors: my father who inspired in me a firm work ethic and love for engineering, my mother who helped so much caring for the twins while we worked and has been very supportive, along with Ciss and Michael Beatty. My brother, Andre Gomez, whose artistic eye has complemented my engineering brain. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the deep friendships we have formed over the years in Cincinnati, especially the Church of Missio Dei. They have walked, encouraged, prayed, and celebrated with us through every trial and experience we have been through, and they have helped me understand how to do all work done in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo Gloria.
iv
“Call to Me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know” Jeremiah 33:3
v
MEMBERS OF THE DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Dr. Andrew J. Steckl (Advisor & Committee Chair) School of Electronics & Computing Systems Nanoelectronics Laboratory University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. James G. Grote (Co-Advisor) Air Force Research Laboratory Materials and Manufacturing Directorate Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Dayton, Ohio
Dr. Fred R. Beyette, Jr School of Electronics & Computing Systems Point-of-Care - Center for Emerging Neurotechnologies University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. Peter B. Kosel School of Electronics & Computing Systems GaAs Devices and ICS Lab University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. Ian Papautsky School of Electronics & Computing Systems Bio Micro Systems Lab University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix
LIST OF TABLES ...... xiv
COMMON ABBREVIATION & SYMBOLS ...... xv
Chapter 1. Introduction to Natural Electronics ...... 1 1.1. Natural Electronics ...... 2 1.2. OLEDs to Bio-OLEDs ...... 6 1.3. Nucleobases and motivation ...... 8 1.4. Summary and Thesis Outline ...... 11
Chapter 2. OLEDs and Experimental Methods ...... 12 2.1. Overview of OLEDs ...... 12 2.2. General OLED Fabrication and Characterization Procedures ...... 17 2.2.1. OLED Fabrication ...... 17 2.2.2. OLED Characterization ...... 19 2.3. Summary ...... 21
Chapter 3. Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties ...... 23 3.1. Nucleobase Origin and Synthesis ...... 23 3.2. Thin Film Properties ...... 25 3.2.1. Thermogravimetric analysis ...... 25 3.2.2. AFM and SEM ...... 28 3.3. Optical and Electrical Properties ...... 30 3.3.1. Optical Spectroscopy ...... 30 3.3.2. Ellipsometery ...... 31 3.3.3. Dielectric constant...... 32 3.3.4. HOMO/LUMO levels ...... 33 3.4. Summary of Nucleobase Properties ...... 35
Chapter 4. Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs ...... 36 4.1. Nucleobases as an EBL/HTL ...... 37 4.1.1. EBL Results ...... 37 4.1.2. Discussion of EBL results ...... 40 4.2. Nucleobases as an HBL/ETL ...... 41
vii
4.2.1. HBL Results ...... 42 4.2.2. HBL Discussion ...... 43 4.2.3. HBL Optimization ...... 45 4.3. Optimization of EBL ...... 46 4.3.1. Thin EBL OLED Experiments...... 46 4.3.2. AFM Results of Thin Films ...... 50 4.3.3. Discussion of Thymine EBL Optimization ...... 52 4.4. Conclusions ...... 53
Chapter 5. Cellulose and Au for Natural-Based OLED substrates ...... 56 5.1. Cellulose substrates ...... 56 5.1.1. Cellulose for OLEDs ...... 59 5.1.2. Cellulose challenges ...... 60 5.2. Gold electrodes in OLEDs ...... 61 5.3. Template Stripping of Gold Electrodes ...... 63 5.3.1. Au Template Stripping Procedure ...... 63 5.3.2. Cellulose/Au Properties and quality ...... 65 5.4. Summary ...... 68
Chapter 6. Flexible Nucleobase Bio-OLED ...... 70 6.1. Adenine as a Hole Injection layer ...... 70 6.1.1. OLED fabrication with Adenine as HIL ...... 70 6.1.2. Adenine as HIL Results ...... 72 6.1.3. Discussion of Cellulose vs Glass Substrate ...... 75 6.1.4. Discussion of Adenine as HIL...... 77 6.2. Cost Analysis of Nucleobase OLEDs ...... 79 6.3. Summary ...... 81
Chapter 7. Summary and Future Work...... 83 7.1. Conclusion of Dissertation ...... 83 7.2. Future Work ...... 84 7.3. Closing remarks...... 85
Appendix A – Error Analysis of Experiments ...... 87
Appendix B – Cost Analysis of Natural Materials ...... 92
REFERENCES ...... 94
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Examples of biomaterials from natural sources integrated as thin film components in bioelectronic devices...... 3
Figure 1-2 Advantages of natural electronics in materials, device, and toxicity and the corollary of applications...... 5
Figure 1-3 Several OLEDs applications on (a) flexible cellulose substrates,39 (b) lighting panels,83 and (c) flexible displays.84 ...... 6
Figure 1-4 (a) DNA complexed with a surfactant that dissolves in alcohols and spin coats into thin films. (b) Photographs of phosphorescent OLEDs with DNA-CTMA resulting in high efficiency red, green a,d blue emission.87 ...... 7
Figure 1-5 The DNA double helix comprises of two long nucleotide chains fused together by hydrogen bonds. Nucleotides contain a pentose sugar, phosphate group, and a nucleobase...... 9
Figure 1-6 (a) Nucleobase powder as-received; (b) thin film cytosine deposited on Si to 200 nm by thermal evaporation...... 10
Figure 2-1 (a) Device structure and operation of a simple electroluminescent device. (b) Molecular orbital levels of the same structure to define work function, electron affinity, and ionization potential relative to the vacuum level...... 13
Figure 2-2 (a) A two layer heterostructure OLED design with an EBL. (b) Large energy barriers prevent electrons from leaving the emitting layer and increase recombination efficiency...... 14
Figure 2-3 Light emission in fluorescent molecules (CBP) limited to singlet spin states. Phosphorescent molecules receive energy by spin coupling and emit light with singlet and triplet spin states...... 15
Figure 2-4 (a) The reference OLED device stack without nucleobases employed for this study; (b) Energy level diagram with layer thickness...... 16
Figure 2-5 (a) A photograph of the CBP:Ir(ppy)3 light emission. (b) Wavelength spectrum of the phosphorescent Ir(ppy)3 molecule. (Inset) CIE graph showing green emission...... 16
ix
Figure 2-6 (a) Commercially patterned ITO on glass substrates; (b) photograph of PEDOT:PSS during spin coating; (c) result of the PEDOT after bake; (d) SVT high vacuum deposition system; (e) result of the organic thin films (inset) organic shadow mask; (f) Al electrodes deposited on top of the organics to complete the stack (inset) electrode shadow mask...... 18
Figure 2-7 Typical graphs of the baseline OLED performance (a) current density versus voltage; (b) luminance versus voltage; (c) current efficiency versus luminance; (d) luminous efficiency versus current density...... 19
Figure 2-8 Total internal reflection results in a decrease in external quantum efficiency (light out-coupled) from the original internal quantum efficiency (photons per recombination)...... 21
Figure 3-1 Chemical structures of the nucleobases consisting of nitrogen (blue), oxygen (red), and hydrogen (gray). G and A are purines with fused pyrimidine and imidazole rings. C, T, and U are pyrimidines with a single heterocyclic ring...... 24
Figure 3-2 Thermogravimetric analysis from 30 to 600 °C in Ar showing temperature stability of: (a) nucleic acid bases; (b) additional nucleic acids and their complex with CTAC; (c) reference OLED materials...... 26
Figure 3-3 (a) AFM analysis of nucleobases (b) sectional line scan samples from AFM results...... 29
Figure 3-4 SEM images of thymine thin film on Si at (a) 1000× and (b) 20,000× magnification...... 30
Figure 3-5 Electromagnetic absorption spectra for UV and visible light from 200-700 nm. . 31
Figure 3-6 Refractive index of nucleobases versus wavelength determined by ellipsometry 32
Figure 3-7 Dielectric constant device stack and measurement...... 33
Figure 3-8 Molecular orbital energy levels of the nucleic acids compared to the reference OLED.104 Energy levels from Faber et al.130 and are shown as a black solid line (—) are compared to the results from Lee et al.46 shown in the dotted grey lines (···). The DNA-CTMA energy level obtained via UPS from Lin et al.131 give an electron affinity of 1.6 eV compared to the typical reported value 0.9 eV.21 ...... 34
x
Figure 4-1 OLED configurations to study nucleobase charge transport: (a) baseline device without the bases to establish a reference; (b) nucleobase in the EBL/HTL configuration; (c) nucleobase in the HBL/ETL configuration...... 36
Figure 4-2 The performance of the nucleobases as an EBL/HTL: (a) current density versus voltage, (b) luminance versus voltage, (c) luminous efficacy versus current density, (d) current efficiency versus luminance...... 38
Figure 4-3 Illumination of the OLED with adenine as the EBL...... 39
Figure 4-4 Possible charge transport mechanism in the EBL OLED for (a) guanine, (b) adenine, and (c) uracil...... 40
Figure 4-5 The performance of the nucleobases as an HBL/ETL: (a) current density versus voltage, (b) luminance versus voltage, (c) luminous efficacy versus current density, and (d) current efficiency versus luminance...... 42
Figure 4-6 Mechanisms of charge transport in the HBL OLED for (a) guanine, (b) adenine, and (c) uracil...... 44
Figure 4-7 HBL optimization of the U and the reference (BCP) showing the effects on performance on (a) current density versus voltage and (b) current efficiency vs luminance...... 45
Figure 4-8 (a) Device stack of the EBL configuration. (b) The energy levels comparing the four different EBL NPB, A, T, and DNA-CTMA and the adjacent layers to the EBL in the OLED...... 47
Figure 4-9 The effect of varying the thickness of the nucleic acids in the EBL configuration compared to the reference...... 48
Figure 4-10 Results of the EBL at 10 nm for baseline, DNA-CTMA, A, and T: (a) current density versus voltage; (b) current efficiency versus luminance; (c) luminance versus current density; (d) current efficiency versus current density...... 49
Figure 4-11 (Left) AFM scans of each EBL deposited to 10 nm and CBP deposited on silicon to 30 nm. Also shown are AFM scans on CBP deposited on top of each EBL film. Scan length is 1 µm; (Right) sectional views of each AFM result plotted on vertical/horizontal axes with each
xi
CBP paired to its respective layer to elucidate how each EBL affects the growth of the emitting layer...... 51
Figure 4-12 (a) Simplified mechanism of hole and electron transport for T(10 nm) showing charge transport concentrated at the valleys of the BCP and T. (b) The smaller roughness of the A layer has more uniform charge injection...... 52
Figure 5-1 The cell wall of plants form a mesh of fibrils. Fibrils are composed of microfibrils made from bundles of cellulose chains. Cellulose chains can be processed to reform into different materials...... 57
Figure 5-2 (a) Reconstituted cellulose film with excellent optical transparency, (b) compared with glass and conventional copy paper...... 58
Figure 5-3 Template stripping method of evaporated Au on Si transferred to cellulose via UV curable epoxy...... 64
Figure 5-4 The adhesion properties of Au on (a) glass and (b) cellulose substrate...... 66
Figure 5-5 Quality analysis of cellulose surface before and after template stripping through a microscope. (a) Photograph of plain cellulose substrate; (b) Au (20 nm) directly evaporated onto the cellulose; (c) SEM image of the plain cellulose substrate showing rough texture; (d) photograph of the template stripped Au on cellulose; (e) photograph of quality of template stripped showing high quality electrode; (f) SEM image of template stripped Au on cellulose...... 67
Figure 5-6 (a) OLED fabricated on Au directly deposited on the rough cellulose; (b) OLED fabricated on a template stripped Au on cellulose...... 67
Figure 5-7 Transmission spectra of the substrates: glass, UV epoxy, ITO, cellulose, and Au. (Inset) Photo of template stripped substrate on lettering to show transparency...... 68
Figure 6-1 (a) Shadow masks for the experiments with Au and cellulose. (b) Photo of the 30x30 mm cellulose attached to a glass substrate...... 71
Figure 6-2 (a) Device stack of the OLED on cellulose; (b) energy levels of the OLED with adenine...... 71
xii
Figure 6-3 Results of phosphorescent OLED on a glass substrate with adenine (squares) and without adenine (circles) on Au (a) luminance and current density versus voltage; (b) current efficiency versus luminance...... 73
Figure 6-4 Results of phosphorescent OLED for template stripped Au on a cellulose substrate with adenine (diamond) and without adenine (triangles) (a) luminance and current density versus voltage; (b) current efficiency versus luminance...... 74
Figure 6-5 Luminance versus current density for all four device types: glass and cellulose substrates with and without adenine...... 75
Figure 6-6 Contour microscopy of Au on cellulose...... 76
Figure 6-7 (a) A clean Au substrate surface with the arrow indicating the presence and orientation of the dipole field. (b) Adenine adsorbs on the gold and interacts with the Au orbitals that redistribute the dipole orientation, creating a favorable electron transfer between the electrode and the adenine...... 77
Figure 6-8 Photograph of bio-OLED on cellulose substrate using adenine as a HIL...... 78
Figure 6-9 (a) Estimated cost of organics for the reference OLED versus the bio-OLED; (b) Cost of the glass substrate with ITO and PEDOT compared to the cellulose substrate with Au and A...... 81
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Natural materials in bioelectronics...... 4 Table 3-1 Summary of nucleobase optoelectronic properties...... 35 Table 4-1 Summary of the nucleobase performance in OLEDs in the (a) EBL configuration at 17 nm; (b) HBL configuration at 12 nm; (c) EBL optimized at 10 nm...... 55 Table 5-1 Review of OLEDs using cellulose as a substrate...... 59 Table 5-2 Summary of Au and ITO properties...... 62 Table 6-1 Cost of organic and cathode material for OLED...... 79 Table 6-2 Cost of substrate and anode for OLED...... 79
xiv
COMMON ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS
OLED Organic Light Emitting Diodes EBL Electron blocking layer HBL Hole blocking layer HIL Hole injection layer EIL Electron injection layer EL Emission layer G Guanine A Adenine C Cytosine T Thymine U Uracil DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid RNA Ribonucleic acid CTMA Cetyltrimethylammonium CTAC Cetyltrimethylammonium chloride ATP Adenosine 5′-triphosphate OPV Organic Photovoltaic OTFT Organic thin film transistor HOMO Highest occupied molecular orbita LUMO Lowest unoccupied molecular orbita PDMS Poly(dimethylsiloxane) ITO Indium tin oxide PEDOT:PSS Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-poly(styrenesulfonate) NPB N,N’-Di(1-naphthyl)-N,N’-diphenyl-(1,1’-biphenyl)-4,4’-diamine CBP 4,4’-Bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl Ir(ppy)3 Tris[2-phenylpyridinato-C2,N]iridium(III) BCP Bathocuproine Alq3 Tris-(8-hydroxyquinoline)aluminum MBD Molecular beam deposition
xv
XPS or UPS X-ray or Ultraviolet photoemission spectrometer UV Ultraviolet SEM Scanning electron microscopy AFM Atomic force microscopy TGA Thermogravametric analysis eV Electron volts V Voltage I Current J Current density L Luminance ε Dielectric constant
ε0 Permeability of free space φ Work function λ Wavelength n Refractive index
ηint Internal quantum efficiency
ηext External quantum efficiency
ηI Current efficiency
ηlum Luminous efficacy cd Candelas lum Luminous flux
xvi
Chapter 1. Introduction to Natural Electronics
The electronics industry has a bountiful and largely unexplored harvest of materials available for a new age of electronic devices. Innumerous materials found in nature derived from trees, produce, plants, and animals have material properties and molecular structures equipped for electronic devices beyond Si.1,2 Though a unification between the wet biological environment with the dry solid-state world seems uncanny, the electronics industry would benefit from renewable and environmentally responsible resources. Biology may even surpass the performance of traditional electronic devices in optical applications, electronic transport, signal transduction, or even data storage. Considering the physiological complexity and efficacy of the human body, biology is fine-tuned with remarkable functionality unsurpassed by human engineering that could have unprecedented value for electronic devices. The deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) molecule, for example, is a beautiful structure thousands of times smaller than a human hair that is calculated to have the data storage capacity of hundreds of exabytes per gram of material.3 Bioelectronics is the field that seeks to capitalize on the unique properties and functionality of the natural realm and connect it with modern electronics.4-6
While DNA hard drives are far from market potential, DNA7,8 and other types of common biological molecules (biomaterials) have already been integrated into many organic electronic devices to replace synthetic carbon-based (organic) molecules to enhance thin film devices such as the organic light emitting diodes (OLED), organic thin film transistor (OTFT), and organic photovoltaic (OPV). Replacing synthesized organic molecules with naturally derived materials could inspire electronic devices that are inexpensive and environmentally sustainable.9 Biological molecules have been used to even enhance device performance and have demonstrated OTFTs created from all-natural materials.10 The new breed of all-natural electronics comes with unique advantages and applications unavailable to other types of technology, such as high volume use- and-toss devices as well as biocompatible implantable sensors.
The OLED is a light emitting device with organic materials for displays or lighting. The number of natural materials available for the OLED is limited. Displays are becoming increasingly
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics prevalent in society, and expanding the list of natural materials available for OLEDs would result in a positive environmental impact with potentially new applications. This work introduces natural occurring nucleic acid bases as a new biomaterial for OLEDs. The nucleic acid bases, called nucleobases or simply bases, are smaller components of the large DNA molecule that readily adapt to standard OLED fabrication. They are renewable resources that come from a variety of food sources. It will be shown how nucleic acid bases have intrinsic optical and electrical properties that can replace conventional materials, while still meeting or exceeding luminance and efficiency criteria in OLEDs. It will also be demonstrated how the bases have great affinity and charge injection capability on gold electrodes. Gold is an excellent electrode choice to fabricate OLEDs on cellulose, a flexible and natural substrate, due to its high conductivity and low temperature processing.
This chapter will continue with a brief discussion on natural electronics and its current status. Afterwards, the work done in DNA-based OLED will be summarized, which leads to the motivation of using nucleobases.
1.1. Natural Electronics The transition from a biological environment to a fully functional electronic device begins with understanding how biological materials (biomaterials) perform as the basic building blocks of organic electronics: semiconductors, dielectrics, substrates, and conductors. The list of biomaterials that can replace such components is constantly growing. Figure 1-1 shows a few biomaterials that have been integrated in electronics. Pigments11-13 from plant dye and β- carotene12,46 found in carrots have been used as a semiconductor in OTFTs. Caffeine from coffee,14 adenine found in bee pollen,14 and albumen in egg whites15 have been used as dielectrics. Even the device substrate has been reimagined using natural biodegradable materials such as food starch16 or plant cellulose.14 Silk is an excellent biocompatible material for implantable sensors17 and has recently been used to generate electricity to power small devices.18 Many of these could be used for ingestible devices or metabolizable electronics.19 Table 1-1 has a summary of natural electronics that has been compiled from other reviews.2,4,20
A fundamental understanding of the electronic properties of biomaterials leads to enhanced operation and expanded application in many different types of devices. DNA, for example, has been a widely studied molecule in bioelectronics for the past decade and has been integrated in
2
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics
Figure 1-1 Examples of biomaterials from natural sources integrated as thin film components in bioelectronic devices. many different electronic devices. Early work has shown the biopolymer can enhance efficiency in OLEDs21, and research has expanded its potential to many other types of devices: organic thin film transistors (OTFT),22,23 organic photovoltaic (OPV),24 memory transistors,25 waveguides,26 optical fibers,27 and lasers.28,29 Its structural properties have also found benefits in nanotechnology such as nanostructures30-32 and photolithography.33 DNA, once strictly a biological molecule, has become an important tool in natural electronics because its natural properties and structure have been leveraged in electronic devices. Similarly, other biomaterials such as silk, cellulose, and melanin are no longer perceived as an unusual electronic components, but rather as a staple for future applications.
Once a material is optimized, the building blocks become the foundation to construct a device derived entirely from natural sources. An all-natural laser has been demonstrated using flavin mononucleotide and vitamin B2 fabricated on a poly-L-lactic acid substrate34 and a similar device on flexible silk substrates.35 Another notable work replaced every component of OTFT, including
3
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics
Table 1-1 Natural materials in bioelectronics.
Biomaterial Natural Origin Device Function Ref starch potato, corn, wheat substrate 14 cellulose plants substrate 16,20,36-40 leather animal skin substrate 41 silk silkworms substrate / energy harvest 17,18,35,42,43 poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) lactic acid substrate 20,34 polyhydroxyalkanoates microorganisms substrate 16 gelatin proteins substrate 14 shellac natural resin from beetles substrate 12 glucose sugar from plants substrate, dielectric, fuel cell 14,44,45 aurin (roslic acid) plant roots smoothing layer 14 adenine fruit dielectric 14 guanine fish skin, bat excretion dielectric 14,46 caffeine coffee dielectric 14 albumin protein from eggs dielectric 15 aleo vera plant dielectric 47 indanthrene yellow G natural anthraquinone semiconductor 14 indanthrene brillant orange natural anthraquinone semiconductor 14 perylene diimide natural anthraquinone semiconductor 14,48 β-carotene carrots, sweet potatoes semiconductor 14,49 indigo natural dye from plants semiconductor 11,12 melanins pigments in mammals semiconductor/conductor 20,50 deoxyguanosine DNA derivative semiconductor 22 natural rubber tree sap memory transistors 51 flavin mononucleotide organ tissue laser gain 34 amyloid fibrils bovine insulin OLEDs 52 DNA salmon sperm/organ tissue OLEDs 21,53-66 “ “ dielectric/OFETs 23,67-71 “ “ capacitor 72,73 “ “ solar cells 24,74-76 “ “ memory transistors 25,77-82 “ “ waveguide/optical fiber 26,27 “ “ photovoltaic “ “ lasers 28 the substrate, with kitchen ingredients, e.g. sugars, caffeine, starch, and dyes.14 Whether to enhance device performance or create all-natural electronics, the benefits and applications of natural electronics expand a diverse range of disciplines.
Figure 1-2 illustrates the advantages of natural electronics in three major areas: material, device performance, and toxicity. All of the biomaterials in Table 1-1 can be harvested safely from renewable and often inexpensive sources. Most of the materials are plant based, which can be grown or harvested to minimize or even ameliorate ecological impact. Natural materials often improve device performance due to their intrinsic electrical properties or have biological affinities that can be leveraged for unique applications in bioelectronics. Biomaterials could offer low toxicity and biocompatibility42 that conventional electronics cannot offer. Most of the materials
4
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics listed are already recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe substances.34 Materials that are degradable and non-hazardous during decomposition9 would ease the burden of the environmental impact of electronic waste.
Figure 1-2 Advantages of natural electronics in materials, device, and toxicity and the corollary of applications.
The three areas mentioned in material, performance, and low toxicity could lead to applications shown in Figure 1-2. Material that is inexpensive and renewable is a prime opportunity for large- volume “use-and-toss” devices. One-time-use displays or sensors fabricated on low cost substrates (paper or bio-plastics) could be used for advertising, food labels, business cards, brochures, or newspapers. Another significant area of impact would be the medical field. Bioelectronics has made great strides interfacing and implanting electronics with the body6 by using biomaterials that
5
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics are non-toxic to the body and bridge cellular activity to signals and systems.5 Devices that interface with the body could aid in health monitoring, tissue repair, and drug delivery.4 Finally, low toxicity and renewable sources are ingredients for a sustainable future by using electronic material that decompose quickly without environmental damage. Sustainability is becoming increasingly relevant as consumer electronics continues to proliferate and assimilate into home appliances.
1.2. OLEDs to Bio-OLEDs
OLEDs are staged to become the future of displays and lighting due to their ability to be grown on low-cost, lightweight, and flexible substrates85 in a variety of applications. Figure 1-3 shows OLED fabricated as small pixels for displays or large-area light panels for solid-state lighting.83,84 They offer better color control and consume less power than traditional luminaires.86 OLEDs are composed of several thin-films (typically 1 to 50 nm) deposited by thermal evaporation or solution deposition methods. As the diversity of biomaterials for natural electronics grows, there are opportunities to replace many of the conventional organic materials in OLEDs with the materials
Figure 1-3 Several OLEDs applications on (a) flexible cellulose substrates,39 (b) lighting panels,83 and (c) flexible displays.84
6
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics
Figure 1-4 (a) DNA complexed with a surfactant that dissolves in alcohols and spin coats into thin films. (b) Photographs of phosphorescent OLEDs with DNA-CTMA resulting in high efficiency red, green a,d blue emission.87 of natural origin. The OLED is a complex structure with demanding optical and electrical properties that will prove to be an arduous journey towards an all-natural OLED.
DNA has been the primary natural molecule in OLEDs. The path of integrating DNA from a wet biological environment to dry thin films for OLEDs is not straightforward. DNA is harvested from the milt and roe sacs from salmon. It passes through several purification steps to finally dry as a powder.88 The powder is not immediately ready for fabrication, since it is only soluble in water, which is difficult to form thin films. The biopolymer must be complexed with a cationic surfactant, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (CTAC). The surfactant binds to the negatively charged DNA backbone to form DNA-cethylmethylammonium (DNA-CTMA), which is further purified by dialysis.89 The new complex is soluble in polar organic alcohols (e.g. butanol, ethanol,
7
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics and methanol) and is ready for solution deposition. Spin coating DNA creates a well-controlled film with thicknesses variable from nanometers to micrometers. Figure 1-4(a) shows the cationic surfactant bound to the backbone of the DNA and a photograph of DNA-CTMA spin coating from a solution to form a thin film layer in OLEDs.
The history of DNA in OLEDs began when it was believed to conduct charge like a nanowire.90 To further elucidate its conductive properties, DNA-CTMA was first inserted into OLEDs in several device configurations by Hirata.58 Hagen from the Nanoelectronics Laboratory showed that OLED device performance could be improved by using DNA-CTMA as an electron-blocking layer (EBL), a layer that confines charge to the light emitting layer (EL), to improve efficiency.21 Spaeth continued the work and used more efficient phosphorescent emitting layers with the DNA- CTMA as the EBL layer that resulted in bright and highly efficient red, green, and blue OLEDs,87 as seen in Figure 1-4(b).
The results from the Nanoelectronics Laboratory spurned others to explore different types of bio-OLED devices. DNA-CTMA was used as an EBL to increase the efficiency in several similar structures such as quantum-dot LED,65 polymer LED,61,64,66 and fluorescent OLED.53,57 One 62 application used DNA/PAn/Ru(bpy)3 to create a color-tunable fluorescent OLED. DNA has also been coupled with luminophores59 (light-emitting molecules), which has led to white luminescence from DNA nanofibers,91 and phosphorescent hosts in OLEDs.54
1.3. Nucleobases and motivation Nucleobases are nitrogenous heterocyclic rings found in the DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) shown in Figure 1-5. DNA is found in the cell nucleus of every living organism and has billions of base pairs that hold the genetic instructions for biological life. The RNA transcribes the DNA nucleotide chain and translates the sequence into a protein, which are the building blocks in biology.92 The DNA chain is composed of two strands of successive nucleotide units organized in a double helix bonded together by the bases. A nucleotide unit consists of pentose attached to a phosphate group and one nucleobase. The DNA bases are known as guanine (G), adenine (A), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). The RNA contains the bases G, A, C, and uracil (U). The nucleic acids have specific affinity for each other: G has three hydrogen bonding sites to pair with C, and A has two hydrogen bonding sites to pair with either T or U.
8
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics
Figure 1-5 The DNA double helix comprises of two long nucleotide chains fused together by hydrogen bonds. Nucleotides contain a pentose sugar, phosphate group, and a nucleobase.
Nucleic acid bases have several advantages over DNA in organic electronics. Firstly, they are small molecules that thermally evaporate directly from powder form into a thin film, shown in Figure 1-6. Evaporation is often advantageous because it integrates with microfabrication procedures and thickness is controllable with nanometer precision. Thermal deposition systems produce pristine film quality because evaporation is done under vacuum with minor contamination.
Secondly, evaporation eliminates wet deposition methods and extensive DNA processing that is required to create thin DNA films. The bases, unlike DNA, require no further modification or surfactants to evaporate from their powder form. DNA must be sonicated to the desired molecular weight, combined with CTAC, and dissolved in alcohols before it can be processed in thin films. Spin coating with alcohols creates problems when spin coating on top of organic materials and creates additional complications during fabrication. The surfactant further increases the
9
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics complexity, cost, and requires extensive filtration procedures.93 Nucleobases are ready to implement into OLED devices directly by evaporation.
Figure 1-6 (a) Nucleobase powder as-received; (b) thin film cytosine deposited on Si to 200 nm by thermal evaporation.
Thirdly, nucleobase offer better purity and more controllable properties compared to DNA. Natural DNA has an arbitrary sequence of bases with varying molecular weights and the added complexity of CTAC. The diverse molecules found in DNA-CTMA have negative implications for OLED research, especially for reproducibility and charge transfer. For example, it has been studied that charge carriers in a guanine rich strand traverse differently than a strand with random composition of the bases.94 It is also known that the nucleobases have different optical properties.95 The sequence of bases cannot be controlled when harvested from natural sources, hence the properties and results may vary from run to run. Therefore, the purity of the nucleobases allows more precise knowledge and control over the optoelectronic properties of the thin-films.
Nucleobases will expand the availability of natural materials for bio-based OLEDs. DNA and protein microfibrils52 (used in the emitting layer) have been the only reports of biomaterials available for OLEDs. Work has been done on the OTFTs to replace nearly every component with a natural material, but OLEDs only have few materials at its disposal. It will be shown in this thesis how the diverse properties of the nucleobases will expand the availability of biomaterial for different layers in the OLED.
10
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Natural Electronics
1.4. Summary and Thesis Outline In conclusion, natural electronics is the field that searches for biological materials that have innate optical or electrical properties to use in electronic devices. The growing list of biomaterials are expanding as suitable building blocks for organic electronics, such as dielectrics, substrates, semiconductors, and conductors. The biomaterials are typically renewable, non-toxic, performance enhancing, biocompatible, and inexpensive for a variety of applications. The device components come together to create all-natural devices that have many useful applications in use- and-toss displays, implantable devices, and environmentally sustainable industries.
DNA has been an important biomaterial for bioelectronics and has been implemented in OLEDs, OTFTs, and OPVs. However, DNA is a difficult polymer to work with because it requires extensive processing and purification. Nucleobases, on the other hand, readily adapt to traditional fabrication procedures (low temperature evaporation). They also have simpler molecular structures that lend to reproducibility and specific properties.
The outline of the thesis will be briefly described. Chapter 2 will continue with a brief explanation of OLEDs, followed by fabrication and characterization procedures for this work in order to provide a foundation for further discussion. A chapter will then be devoted to understanding nucleobases and their thin film properties as they pertain to OLEDs (Chapter 3). The properties will lay the groundwork for the experiments of nucleobases as an electron blocking layer and a hole blocking layer in OLEDs (Chapter 4). Afterwards, attention will shift to finding natural based materials for the substrate and the electrode of the OLED, specifically cellulose and Au, and a new method will be presented for fabricating high-quality electrodes for OLEDs on cellulose (Chapter 5). In Chapter 6, an OLED will be fabricated on cellulose and adenine will be used as a novel hole injector for gold electrodes to improve the device performance ~5x. Chapter 7 will conclude with a summary and recommendations for future work.
11
Chapter 2. OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Light emitters have been reimagined and reconstructed over the century with new materials and designs to perfect the luminaire. Incandescent, halogen, fluorescent, plasma, and light-emitting semiconductors currently dominate the industry, but OLEDs are quickly maturing and staged to become the future of lighting technology.86 A foundational knowledge for OLEDs will be given to provide contextual language for further discussion of the nucleobase OLEDs. The initial overview of OLEDs will highlight major advances in OLED technology. The focus will then shift to general fabrication procedures along with characterization techniques for the reference OLED structure implemented for this work.
2.1. Overview of OLEDs OLEDs are beginning to emerge as the next generation for flexible and curved displays. The thin organic layers (hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen based) form amorphous films bonded together by weak van der Waals forces, contrary to inorganic light emitting diodes (LEDs) that are hard and brittle with covalent molecular bonds. Therefore, OLED displays can be fabricated on inexpensive and lightweight substrates, such as plastic or other polymers. They can flex or curve while operating and adapt to a variety of microfabrication techniques, including thermal evaporation,96 but it may also eventually lead to mass fabrication by inkjet printing97 or roll-to-roll.98,99 Fabrication such as roll-to-roll will support flexible application designs and could eliminate costly microfabrication assembly lines to thrust OLEDs to the forefront of lighting technology.85
The OLED layers are designed to convert electrical energy to photon energy. Electroluminescence is the process of converting electron energy to light. Lumophores emit photons when electrons relax from a high-energy state and recombine with a hole (a vacant electron site) in a low energy state. The energy difference between the states is equivalent to the energy of the photon that is emitted, resulting in different color light. Simple electroluminescence can be observed by depositing a layer (~100 nm) of electroluminescent material between two electrodes (anode and cathode) with a voltage potential as shown in Figure 2-1(a). Helfrich and
12
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Schneider first observed electroluminescence in organics for the molecule anthracene.100 Electrons are injected into the organic material from the cathode and holes are injected from the anode. In organic material, charge travels by charge hopping between molecular sites until they eventually recombine at an active site. The structure of a single electroluminescent layer is simple but it requires very large voltages (>100 V).
Figure 2-1 (a) Device structure and operation of a simple electroluminescent device. (b) Molecular orbital levels of the same structure to define work function, electron affinity, and ionization potential relative to the vacuum level.
Figure 2-1(b) is the energy diagram containing the molecular orbitals of the organics and work functions of the metals. Molecular orbital theory provides a better understanding of charge transport in organic electronics.101 Every organic material has intrinsic energy levels that determine the energy required for a charge carrier to transfer to another material102 based on the molecular orbital of the molecule. The orbital is the electron energy in electron volts (eV) required for an electron to escape from its state in the molecule into the vacuum level, which is the reference at 0 eV considered a large distance away from the molecule. The two molecular orbitals that are of most concern in organics electronics are the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) and the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO). The LUMO is the electron affinity energy with respect to the vacuum level that determines electron charge transfer energy. Similarly, the HOMO is the ionization potential for hole transfer. These are analogous to the conduction and valence band gap in inorganic semiconductors except there is no continuous energy band. The metal
13
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Figure 2-2 (a) A two layer heterostructure OLED design with an EBL. (b) Large energy barriers prevent electrons from leaving the emitting layer and increase recombination efficiency. electrodes do not have orbitals but instead has a work function (φ). The anode is typically a transparent electrode with a high work function such as indium tin oxide (ITO) (φ = 4.7 eV) to inject holes into the HOMO of the organic layers. The cathode is a metal with a low work function, such as aluminum (Al) (φ = 4.1 eV) to inject electrons into the LUMO of the organic layers.
Although other material properties for OLEDs are important, such as resistivity and refractive index, the energy levels help give a fundamental understanding of OLED design. Energy levels must have a miniscule eV barrier between adjacent layers to decrease the electric field potential required to overcome the barriers, leading to better OLED designs. A significant breakthrough in the OLED structure was the implementation of the two layer heterostructure by Tang and VanSlyke103. A similar model of their design is shown in Figure 2-2(a) and its corresponding energy levels in Figure 2-2(b). The structure employed a hole injection layer (HIL) with a nearly matched HOMO level to the ITO work function to facilitate better hole injection into the organics. Similarly, the Al work function matches the LUMO of the adjacent organic to efficiently inject electrons into the device. Additionally, the low LUMO adjacent to the emitting layer served as an electron blocking layer since the energy barrier was too high for electrons to penetrate to the adjacent layer. The EBL contains the electrons near the emitting layer to increase the probability of recombination corresponding to an improvement in efficiency.
14
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Another major milestone for OLEDs was the development of the electro-phosphorescent system by Baldo et al.104,105 Up until this point, fluorescence was the only mechanism for electroluminescence in OLEDs. A fluorescent molecule does not always produce a photon when an electron recombines with a hole. In Figure 2-3, recombination in CBP results in a fluorescent photon emission only if the electron-hole pair has a singlet state (excited states with a total angular of momentum equal to zero), which has a 25% probability of occurring. The triplet states (total angular of momentum equal to 1) have a 75% probability of occurring and results in no photon emission (non-radiative), which is lost efficiency. The phosphorescent emitters utilize a host-guest system that exploit both singlet and triplet state for photon emission. The host (CBP) transfers spin states to the phosphorescent guest (Ir(ppy)3) by inter-system crossing. The electron relaxation occurs in the phosphorescent molecule and results in light emission regardless of the spin state, triplet or singlet, and thus the theoretical quantum efficiency is 100%. The electro-phosphorescent system propelled OLEDs to compete with traditional luminaire technology.
Figure 2-3 Light emission in fluorescent molecules (CBP) limited to singlet spin states. Phosphorescent molecules receive energy by spin coupling and emit light with singlet and triplet spin states.
15
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Figure 2-4 (a) The reference OLED device stack without nucleobases employed for this study; (b) Energy level diagram with layer thickness.
Figure 2-5 (a) A photograph of the CBP:Ir(ppy)3 light emission. (b) Wavelength spectrum of the phosphorescent Ir(ppy)3 molecule. (Inset) CIE graph showing green emission.
The OLED design shown in Figure 2-4 is the baseline device for this works without nucleobases. The emitting layer is the phosphorescent system CBP doped with 10wt% of Ir(ppy)3. The OLED is grown on ITO patterned on a glass substrate. The conductive polymer, PEDOT:PSS, is spin-coated on top of the ITO to enhance hole injection from the electrode to the organics. NPB is the electron blocking layer and hole transport layer. BCP is a hole-blocking layer to prevent holes from leaving the emitting layer. Alq3 facilitates electron injection from the cathode. The
16
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
LiF and Al serve as the cathode. LiF has a dual purpose of enhancing electron injection and is necessary to prevent aluminum diffusion into organics106.
Figure 2-5 shows the phosphorescent reference device, emitting green light with a peak wavelength of ~512nm, from the Ir(ppy)3 that has an orbital energy difference of 2.6 eV. Other phosphorescent emitters are available with different energy levels that produce a variety of colors. The inset in Figure 2-5 has the CIE color space that is useful for relating the electromagnetic spectrum with how colors are perceived by the eye.
2.2. General OLED Fabrication and Characterization Procedures
2.2.1. OLED Fabrication OLEDs are fabricated on 2 inch round glass substrates that are received with commercial-grade pre-patterned ITO (90 nm; 20 Ω/□). Each wafer contains four 4 mm2 OLED devices. The area where the ITO, organics, and aluminum overlap is the active area. Each device run can hold a maximum of three round wafers, therefore a baseline device is usually run alongside two other devices.
The wafer preparation begins by scrubbing the substrates with a dust-free wipe and rinsing with organic solvents (acetone, methanol, isopropyl alcohol) and deionized water. The wafers are blown dry and placed in an oven at 100°C for 15 min to remove any remaining moisture. The wafers are then exposed to an oxygen plasma preening system (Plasma-Preen, Terra Universal Inc.) for 10 min as the final step in the cleaning process. Figure 2-6(a) has a picture of the glass/ITO substrate after cleaning. This cleaning method is considered the standard cleaning process for all wafers.
The PEDOT:PSS (Heraeus Materials Technology) is the first layer deposited by spin coating (Laurell Technologies WS-400B-6NPP/Lite spincoater) on the ITO (Figure 2-6(b)). The solution is filtered with a 0.45 μm PVDF syringe filter and 1 mL of PEDOT:PSS is dropped on the wafer. The spin coating parameters is 500 rpm for 8 s followed by 2000 rpm for 20 s to produce ~40 nm thin film. The wafers are placed in an oven at 125°C for 15 mins, resulting in a uniform film ~40nm thick that covers the entire wafer (Figure 2-6(c)). The ITO leads are cleaned with a methanol wipe to prevent the PEDOT:PSS from shorting the anode and cathode. Afterwards, the
17
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Figure 2-6 (a) Commercially patterned ITO on glass substrates; (b) photograph of PEDOT:PSS during spin coating; (c) result of the PEDOT after bake; (d) SVT high vacuum deposition system; (e) result of the organic thin films (inset) organic shadow mask; (f) Al electrodes deposited on top of the organics to complete the stack (inset) electrode shadow mask. wafers are transferred to the vacuum deposition system (Figure 2-6(d)) to deposit the remaining organic layers by thermal evaporation.
The organic materials and cathode are thermally deposited in a molecular beam deposition (MBD) system in ultra-high vacuum at 10-9 Torr. The MBD system (SVT Inc.) contains eight thermal effusion cells containing the organic and electrode materials. A mechanical arm transfers the wafers to the main chamber where they rest on a rotating stage to ensure uniform deposition. Each effusion cell is individually heated to the sublimation or evaporation temperature of the material. The shutter opens to expose the wafer and a quartz crystal monitor (Inficon XTC/2) measures deposition rate in the chamber for precise thickness control. Each layer is grown at a deposition rate of ~0.05-0.2 nm/s. The organic layers are deposited through a shadow mask onto the active device area (Figure 2-6(e)). The wafers are briefly removed from vacuum to apply a shadow mask for the cathode. The wafers are placed back into the system and the LiF and the Al are deposited through the new mask (Figure 2-6(f)). The final OLED structure is as follows: ITO
18
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
[90nm] / PEDOT:PSS [40nm] / NPB [17nm] / CBP:Ir(ppy)3 (10wt%) [30nm] / BCP [12nm] / Alq3 [25nm] / LiF [<1nm] / Al [40nm].
2.2.2. OLED Characterization
After OLED fabrication, the wafers are removed from vacuum to be characterized. All characterizations are done in a homemade glove box in a controlled nitrogen environment to prevent moisture from degrading the device. A DC power supply (HP 6634B) is connected to the OLED and an automated LabView program controls the voltage and records the current. The voltage increases from 0 V to 20 V at 0.25 V intervals. The Konica Minolta CS-200 color and luminance meter records luminance and color data (also controlled by LabView). The CS-200 is set to 0.1° measurement angle and 0.5 s record time to quickly measure the OLED and to minimize heating the device at higher currents. The device is on for 1 s at each voltage interval while it is
Figure 2-7 Typical graphs of the baseline OLED performance (a) current density versus voltage; (b) luminance versus voltage; (c) current efficiency versus luminance; (d) luminous efficiency versus current density.
19
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods measured, then OLED is turned off for 3 s. Luminance is measured directly from the meter in luminous intensity, candela per unit area (cd/m2).
Figure 2-7 shows the results of the standard baseline OLED (the control without biomaterials). Voltage (V) and current density (J) plots in Figure 2-7(a) compare how the current changes versus voltage. Figure 2-7(b) shows voltage and luminance (cd/m2) values for everyday luminaires.107
Current efficiency, ηI (cd/A), (Figure 2-7(c)) is useful for understanding electron/hole recombination efficiency and is often plotted versus luminance or current density. Current efficiency is calculated directly from luminance, L (cd/m2), and current density, J (A/m2), viz.
퐿 휂 = (1) 퐼 퐽
Luminous efficacy, ηlum, is the amount of luminous flux emitting per watt (lumens/W) shown in Figure 2-7(d). It is particularly useful for comparing different lighting applications. The efficacy of a tungsten lightbulb, for example, is ~15 lum/W. Luminous flux (lum) differs from luminance (cd) in that it accounts for the light intensity in a particular direction. It can be converted by assuming that OLEDs emits uniformly in all directions.105 Therefore, candela (cd) can be approximated to lumens (lum) by multiplying by steradians in the forward direction (π), and luminous efficacy (lum/W) is calculated, viz.
푐푑 ∙ 휋 휂 = (2) 푙푢푚 퐼푉
Ideally, every electron injected into the device should recombine with one hole to produce one photon that exits out of the device to the viewer. However, various incidents do not produce a photon that lower the efficiency. Recombination could occur in non-emitting layers; the electron relaxation path could prohibit photon generation, such as the triplet state in fluorescent emitters; the electron loses its energy to an impurity in the device. In these cases, the energy is typically converted to a phonon resulting in vibrational energy and loss efficiency. Internal quantum efficiency (IQE) measures the efficiency of the electron to photon conversion. Simply, IQE is the ratio of photons generated by the number of electrons injected into the device. IQE depends on the multiplication of the charge carrier balance factor (γ), explicitly the ratio of electrons/holes at the recombination region; the probability of exciton formation (ηs); lastly, the photoluminescence quantum efficiency of a material (휙), which is 100% for phosphorescent materials106.
20
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
휂푖푛푡 = 훾 × 휂푠 × 휙푓 (3)
Furthermore, a generated photon could fail to reach the viewer. Since glass (n=1.46) has a higher refractive index than air (n=1.0), light attempting to exit the glass above the critical angle of 43.2° normal to the surface will experience total internal reflection and remain in the device or exit out the sides. Total internal reflection typical results in ~80% of the loss efficiency108 shown in Figure 2-8. The external quantum efficiency (EQE) is the ratio of the total photons produced by the total photons that actually reach the viewer. EQE is calculated by the ratio of the internal quantum efficiency by the measured luminance in the direction of the viewer. Alternatively, EQE can be calculated with luminance, wavelength emission, and current,109 which was the method used in this work.
Figure 2-8 Total internal reflection results in a decrease in external quantum efficiency (light out- coupled) from the original internal quantum efficiency (photons per recombination).
2.3. Summary An overview has been presented on the fundamentals of OLEDs including the basic structure, mechanism, and characterization. OLEDs rely on organic electroluminescent material to convert electron energy to photon energy. More efficient OLEDs use additional layers such as hole/electron injection layers (HIL and EIL) to enhance charge injection from the electrode and electron or hole blocking layers (EBL and HBL) that contain charge to the emitting layer. A major milestone in OLED efficiency was the discovery of phosphorescent emitters that enhanced the efficiency of OLEDs to 100% internal quantum efficiency.
21
Chapter 2 – OLEDs and Experimental Methods
Fabrication techniques for the baseline device used in this work involved a wet spin coating process and dry thermal evaporation. Characterization methods and a discussion on device performance and efficiency were presented, as well as a discussion on quantum efficiency. The baseline device will be used to compare to the performance of the nucleobases OLEDs in the proceeding chapters.
22
Chapter 3. Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
This chapter will discuss the properties of the nucleobases in their thin film state. The first section will be on the discovery of the nucleobases and how they can be extracted from natural materials or artificially synthesized. The second section will look at the thin film quality using microscopy and investigate temperature stability. Finally, additional tests will explore opto/electrical characteristics such as optical spectroscopy, dielectric constants, refractive indices, and molecular orbital levels. The properties will be the foundation for the subsequent experiments when the bases are inserted into the OLEDs.
3.1. Nucleobase Origin and Synthesis Most of the initial work of the nucleic acid bases was done at the turn of the 20th century. They were first observed by the Swiss physician Johannes Miescher110 and later isolated by the German biochemist Albrecht Kossel.111 In the early 1870’s, Miescher examined bandages from soldiers in the Crimean War. He observed large molecules in the nuclei of white blood cells from the bandage and named it ‘nuclein’ because it appeared to come from the cell nuclei. Shortly after, Kossel isolated the first nucleic acids from natural sources, which he later received the Nobel Prize in Medicine.112 The etymology of the bases hint where the first material were extracted from113: guanine from bird feces (guano), adenine from the pancreas gland (aden) of an ox, cytosine from cellular tissue (cyto), thymine from a thymus gland, and uracil (urea from uric acid) extracted from the hydrolysis of herring sperm.112 The knowledge of their biological significance containing the code for life came nearly 50 years later.114,115
The nucleobases are categorized into two chemical systems: purines and pyrimidines. Adenine and guanine are part of the purine system. Thymine, cytosine, and uracil have the pyrimidine system. Figure 3-1 illustrate the chemical structure of the bases. The purines have a two-ring structure comprising of a pyrimidine ring fused with an imidazole ring. The purine family is the most widely nitrogenous heterocyclic molecule found in nature.116 Some of the more well-known natural purines are adenine, guanine, hypoxanthine, xanthine, theobromine, caffeine, uric acid, and
23
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-1 Chemical structures of the nucleobases consisting of nitrogen (blue), oxygen (red), and hydrogen (gray). G and A are purines with fused pyrimidine and imidazole rings. C, T, and U are pyrimidines with a single heterocyclic ring. isoguanine. The pyrimidines contain only a single heterocyclic ring similar to the pyridine molecule. Other well-known natural pyrimidines include thiamine (vitamin B1) and alloxan112.
Nucleic acid bases can be created chemically by enzymatic reactions or metabolically created.112,116 There are numerous methods for artificially synthesizing nucleobases. For example, adenine can be created from ammonia and hydrogen cyanide through chemical processes.117 Most of the bases can be synthesized by a process known as Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, which requires 118 heating a gas mixture of CO, H2, and CH3 to 600 ºC with a nickel/iron catalyst.
But as demonstrated in the early 20th century, nucleobases can also be isolated from the natural sources, which is important for natural electronics. They can be extracted from many different natural resources, such as wheat germ, meat, plants, and fish by chemical isolation techniques or enzymatic processes.10,114,119,120 For example, organ tissue can be dissolved by chemical processes, filtered, and dried into a powder.121 Adenine can come from plants and non-animal sources.122 Bee pollen is considered a food rich in adenine.123 Extraction from yeast is another common method to create adenine by converting it from phosphoribosyl pyrophosphate (PRPP) through
24
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties enzymatic processes.124,125 The nucleobases used in this study were purchased from Sigma- Aldrich, and although the source of the bases could not be verified, it is quite possible that they were synthetically created. However, similar to DNA, nucleic acid bases have the potential to be harvested from the byproduct of another industry or unwanted biological wastes leading to their low cost and renewability. As the bases continue to be studied in thin film electronics, it may be more practical to switch from a synthetic origin to a natural origin weighing the cost and environmental impact.
3.2. Thin Film Properties The thin film properties of the nucleobases were investigated to explore their potential in opto/electronic devices including thermal stability, film quality, dielectric constants, refractive index, and energy levels. The bases (Sigma-Aldrich) were received as white to slightly yellowish powder. All the nucleobases had a purity of ≥99% except for guanine, which was available at 98% purity, and used without further purification. They are not soluble in aqueous solutions except in the presence of a weak acid. Thermogravimetric analysis was first done on the nucleobase powders to determine temperature stability. Afterwards, the nucleobases were loaded one at a time into an effusion cell in the MBD system and the bases were thermally evaporated onto a clean substrate for thin film analysis.
3.2.1. Thermogravimetric analysis Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was performed (Netzsch STA 409 PC Luxx) to measure mass loss as a function of increasing temperature. The bases were loaded ~10 mg from powder form into a metal crucible and placed into the TGA system. The test was performed in an argon environment and the temperature was increased from 30 °C to 600 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min. For the sake of comparison, temperature stability is defined here as the point that the mass decreases 5% from its original mass.
The results of the nucleobases were compared to other nucleic acids: DNA (200kDa), adenosine, adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and their complexes DNA-CTMA and ATP-CTMA. Adenosine is a nucleoside consisting of an adenine molecule and pentose sugar without the phosphate group. The ATP has the adenine, sugar, and three phosphate groups attached. Since
25
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-2 Thermogravimetric analysis from 30 to 600 °C in Ar showing temperature stability of: (a) nucleic acid bases; (b) additional nucleic acids and their complex with CTAC; (c) reference OLED materials.
26
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties both DNA and ATP have a negative charge they can be complexed with CTAC to form DNA- CTMA and ATP-CTMA done according to the literature procedure126.
Figure 3-2(a) has the results of the TGA for the nucleobases. T and U have nearly equal thermal stability points of 260 and 270 °C, respectively. The rapid mass loss is due to thermal evaporation, and the molecules are completely evaporated by 340 °C. The purine A is nearly identical to the two pyrimidines with a slightly higher stability temperatures at 290 °C completely evaporating by 360 °C. The C has the third highest thermal stability point of 325 °C and rapidly loses mass until 340°C, most likely due to thermal evaporation. Beyond 340 °C the mass loss for the C sample occurs much more gradually. Upon removing the C from the system, it was clear that the sample had carbonized causing the rate of evaporation to decrease. Finally, G displayed the highest stability temperature of 465 °C. The G sample has high thermal stability due to its high crystal lattice energy attributed to the presence of oxo and amino groups that facilitate intermolecular hydrogen bonding.127 After 540 °C, the G slowed its rate of evaporation and began to carbonize similar to C.
The nucleosides and nucleic acids are given in Figure 3-2(b). Water retention was very apparent in DNA, DNA-CTMA, ATP, and ATP-CTMA even after oven drying, exhibiting a mass loss of more than 5-10% before ~150 °C. Since DNA showed the greatest premature mass loss, DNA powder was dried for 1 week in high vacuum (10-7 Torr). The TGA experiment was repeated with the same results. The high water retention may have significant impact on DNA-based OLEDs, especially since the material is spin coated and not typically oven dried before using as an EBL. These four materials all became thermally unstable (defined here as a significant change in mass loss rate above water removal temperature) between 200-220 °C. Adenosine did not show evidence of water retention and became thermally unstable at 280 °C. All the samples were carbonized upon removal from the system. Interestingly, the nucleobases have a higher thermal stability than the nucleic acids, which is beneficial device fabrication. DNA-CTMA has been shown to result in irreversible structure change of the thin film above 160 °C, attributed most likely to the thermal denature of the DNA helix.128
TGA was done on conventional organic material used for the baseline OLED structure shown in Figure 3-2(c). BCP had the lowest thermal stability at 300 °C and was completely evaporated by 380 °C. Three of the molecules, CBP, NPB, and Alq3 had nearly identical thermal stability at
27
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
380 °C and completely evaporated by 460 – 480 °C. The inorganic salt, LiF, was stable up through 600 °C.
3.2.2. AFM and SEM A silicon wafer was cleaned using the standard cleaning process described in section 2.2.1. Each nucleobase was individually evaporated on a silicon wafer at a rate of 0.1 nm/s to a thickness of ~100 nm. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) (Veeco Dimension) measures height distribution of samples by recording the vertical deflection of a Si cantilever along the surface. AFM was set to tapping mode for all experiments. The images are given in Figure 3-3(a) for all five bases. A cross-section view was created by sampling a 5 µm line scan from each AFM image and the results plot vertical deflection versus horizontal distance in Figure 3-3(b). The horizontal line scan was plotted on the same height scale (40 nm) so that the difference could be easily compared. Thymine was the exception being nearly 10x larger in height, requiring a larger scale (400 nm).
The G thin film had the highest quality of the five bases evident by the AFM image and line scan. The small granules had a surface roughness of 0.4 nm. A had grains several times larger than G with a roughness of 3.4 nm. The line scan showed A grains had very consistent horizontal width of 100-150 nm and an average height of 10-15 nm. C had a slightly larger roughness (5.0 nm) with string-like features. The line scan for C was similarly in height to A (~10-15 nm), but unlike A the horizontal width of the long strings were nearly 1-2 μm in length. U was almost twice the roughness (7.0 nm) as C with smaller grain sizes. Its height distribution was 20-25 nm with a crystallite width of 150-200 nm. T stood out above the rest with the most unusual growth. T formed tall pillar structures with peaks 200-250 nm in height and nearly 1 μm in diameter, and the film was extraordinarily rough at 81.7 nm. The AFM result for T are similar with a study from literature10 showing large columnar structures for T . U was plotted on the same line graph as T to show the difference. It is important to note that the film quality was only observed at 100 nm to understand how the film layer grows with thickness. The film quality for thicknesses between 10-20 nm is addressed for some of the bases in section 4.3.2.
Due to the high surface roughness of T, further analysis on its thin film was done with a Scanning Electron Microscopy (Evex Mini-SEM, SX-3000). SEM observes the reflection of high- energy electrons on the surface to construct a 2D morphology of the surface. T was deposited to thickness of 100 nm on a silicon wafer. The settings for the scan were 30 kV. The results are shown
28
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-3 (a) AFM analysis of nucleobases (b) sectional line scan samples from AFM results.
29
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-4 SEM images of thymine thin film on Si at (a) 1000× and (b) 20,000× magnification. in Figure 3-4. At 1000× the surface was uniform and had no distinguishing features. At 20,000×, the roughness and pillar features that were observed in the AFM were distinguishable. Vibration from the system is apparent at 20,000×.
3.3. Optical and Electrical Properties
3.3.1. Optical Spectroscopy Optical spectroscopy was done on thin film nucleobases to observe optical absorption between the ultra-violet (UV) through the visible spectrum (Perkin Elmer Lambda 900). Optical spectroscopy verified that the nucleobases were transparent in visible spectrum so as not to hinder OLED light output. The bases also have unique absorption peaks in the UV region. These peaks correlate well with previous optical spectroscopy reports of the bases in aqueous solution129 and give confidence that the evaporated bases are not destroyed or altered during thermal evaporation.
Each nucleobase was thermally evaporated onto a clean quartz wafer to a thickness of ~100 nm. DNA-CTMA was dissolved in butanol at 1 wt% and spin coated (6000 rpm for 20 seconds) onto a quartz wafer and dried at room temperature, resulting in ~20 nm film. The measurements were taken between the wavelengths 200 – 700 nm for the UV and visible light and the results were normalized. It was observed that all of the nucleic acid thin films were transparent in the visible range (400 – 700 nm). Figure 3-5 contains the results of the optical spectroscopy analysis.
30
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-5 Electromagnetic absorption spectra for UV and visible light from 200-700 nm.
3.3.2. Ellipsometery Ellipsometry instruments detect minuscule changes to circularly polarized light as it travels through a medium to measure properties such as roughness, thickness, and refractive index. Ellipsometry (WVASE32, J.A. Woollam Co) was used in this work to determine refractive index and film thickness. Individual bases were deposited on a Si wafers to 17 nm, the thickness used for OLED fabrication (see section 2.2.1) and the crystal monitor was calibrated according to the
31
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties results of this analysis. Measurements were taken from 400-900 nm at 65, 70, and 75 degrees. The oxide of the Si wafer was measured to be 2.3 nm, which was used in the curve fit model. A Cauchy curve fit was used. The data of the polarization changes is not given, but the model gives the refractive index of the material as a function of wavelength of light, which is shown in Figure 3-6 for the nucleobases between 400 – 700 nm. At 580 nm, G had the highest refractive index at 1.96. A, C, and U had similar refractive indices, 1.73, 1.76, and 1.67, respectively. T had the lowest at 1.50, comparable to glass.
Figure 3-6 Refractive index of nucleobases versus wavelength determined by ellipsometry
3.3.3. Dielectric constant The dielectric constants were measured by fabricating a thin film parallel plate capacitor. The commercially available and pre-patterned ITO (section 2.2) was used as the bottom electrode. Each base was deposited to a thickness of ~100 nm monitored by a crystal monitor. The same organic and electrode masks used for the OLEDs were used for the capacitor. The nucleobases were deposited on top of the ITO, and the Al was patterned as the top electrode so that the active area was 4 mm2 as shown in Figure 3-7. The capacitance was measured with an HP4275A LCR meter at 1 MHz. The relative permittivity (εr) was calculated according to the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor, viz.
32
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-7 Dielectric constant device stack and measurement.
퐶푑 휀푟 = (4) 휀0퐴
2 C is the measured capacitance (F); A is the device area (m ); εo is the permittivity of free space (8.854×10-12 F/m), and d is the thickness of the nucleobase layer (m).
The dielectric constant (relative permittivity, εr) for the purines G and A were 4.0 and 3.4, respectively. The pyrimidines C, T, and U were calculated to be 4.3, 2.0, and 1.6, respectively. The results are slightly lower (0.3 – 0.4) than those reported in a similar study10 that reported the values at a lower frequency (1 kHz). Another study46 reported the dielectric constant of G to be 5.03.
3.3.4. HOMO/LUMO levels The molecular orbital energy levels are an important parameter to understand charge transport between molecules. Energy level measurements require an X-ray or ultraviolet photoemission spectrometer (XPS or UPS) that exert short electromagnetic wavelengths to perturb the electron and detect electron kinetic energy in the orbitals, measured in electron volts (eV). Due to limited access to such expensive and complex systems, a literature survey was done from groups who have explored orbital levels by XPS, UPS, or by computational simulations.
33
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties
Figure 3-8 Molecular orbital energy levels of the nucleic acids compared to the reference OLED.104 Energy levels from Faber et al.130 and are shown as a black solid line (—) are compared to the results from Lee et al.46 shown in the dotted grey lines (···). The DNA-CTMA energy level obtained via UPS from Lin et al.131 give an electron affinity of 1.6 eV compared to the typical reported value 0.9 eV.21
Lee et al. worked closely with the bases and has done the most comprehensive measurement of the nucleobase orbital levels.46,132 The thin film nucleobases were evaporated on ITO and aluminum electrodes and measured with UPS. Their initial work only highlighted A and T HOMO/LUMO levels but a more recent work included G and C. The U was not included in any of the studies. The study revealed that the energy level gaps are wide (3.8 – 4.1 eV). The ionization potential (HOMO) increases accordingly, G < A < C < T, such that G has the lowest (6.3 eV) and T has the highest (7.0 eV).
Another group, Faber et al., did computational simulations of all the bases.130 The results had similar energy gaps (3.6 – 3.9 eV) but placed the HOMO/LUMO levels 0.5 – 0.7 eV lower than the results from Lee. However, the relative energy levels of the nucleobases still follow the trend G < A < C < T < U. G had the lowest ionization potential (HOMO) of 5.7 eV and an electron affinity (LUMO) of 1.8 eV. The U had the highest ionization potential of 6.7 eV and the highest electron affinity of 3.0 eV.
There are many other studies that have investigated the energy levels of the bases.133-137 The variation in results is most likely due to different measurement techniques (UPS vs simulation) and under different conditions (gas phase, single molecule, and thin film). A better understanding of the energy levels pertaining to OLEDs may aid in further understanding of the nucleobases. Nevertheless, all of the studies are in accord with the general trend (G < A < C < T < U). It implies
34
Chapter 3 – Nucleobases and Thin Film Properties that G is a strong hole acceptor while prohibiting electron transport that could serve as an EBL/HTL in OLEDs. Conversely, U is a strong electron acceptor while prohibiting hole transport that could serve as an HBL/ETL in OLEDs. The energy levels of the other bases increase stepwise between G and U creating ample flexibility in device design. The energy levels quoted from Faber and Lee are compared to the baseline OLED in Figure 3-8 showing the similarities to the EBL/HTL or HBL/ETL layers of the baseline.
3.4. Summary of Nucleobase Properties
Table 3-1 Summary of nucleobase optoelectronic properties.
G A C T U
Refractive index (580nm) 1.96 1.73 1.76 1.50 1.67
Relative dielectric constant (1MHz) 4.0 3.4 4.3 2.0 1.6
HOMO (eV)130 5.7 6.0 6.2 6.5 6.7
LUMO (eV)130 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.0
Molecular orbital gap (eV) 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7
Thermal stability (°C) 465 290 325 260 270 (95% remaining mass)
This chapter has explored some of the fundamental properties of thin film nucleobases pertaining to optoelectronic devices. A summary of the results is presented in Table 3-1. The bases have diverse attributes that will show potential in OLED design. The G and T (and U) have the largest disparity of properties. The G has the highest thermal stability (465 °C) while T and U have the lowest thermal stability (~260 °C). The surface roughness of thin film deposited bases fluctuates from extremely smooth (G – 0.5 nm roughness) to unusually coarse (T – 81.7 nm roughness). The optical transmission is transparent in visible range for all the bases, and the index of refraction ranges from 1.96 for G and 1.5 for T at 580 nm. Dielectric constants are diverse from 4.0 to 4.3 (for G and C, respectively) to 1.6 (for U). Finally, the energy levels of the bases expand the gamut from EBL/HTL (for G) to a HBL/ETL (for U) following the trend G < A < C < T < U. The substantial difference in thin film attributes will be considered in the next chapters during the nucleobase-OLED characterizations. It will be shown that the properties offer flexibility in creating efficient and optimized OLEDs.
35
Chapter 4. Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
The diverse properties and wide range in energy levels offer rich opportunities for nucleobases in all-natural organic electronics by allowing more flexibility in device design. Several nucleobase OLEDs were fabricated to observe charge transport behavior and demonstrate their potential in organic electronics. The reference device and the nucleobase configurations explored in this chapter are shown in Figure 4-1. The first type of device was a reference device to establish the control. The second device replaced the NPB (the EBL/HTL layer in the reference) to demonstrate that G and A are EBL/HTL, while C, T, and U fail to transport holes to the emitting layer. The third device substituted the BCP (the HBL/ETL in the reference) with nucleobases to show the reverse trend: U, T, and C are HBL/ETL while G and A fail to transport electrons into the emitting layer.
This chapter also investigates the optimal thickness of the nucleobase in the EBL and HBL configuration. U was varied in thickness as the HBL-device to show that 12 nm produced the greatest performance increase and several suggestions are given to improve results. For the EBL- device, thin layers of T (<12 nm) resulted in a two-fold increase in efficiency over the reference, even though T has HBL tendencies. AFM analysis revealed that the T created large surface morphology changes in the emitting layer, which was the proposed reason for the large efficiency gain.
Figure 4-1 OLED configurations to study nucleobase charge transport: (a) baseline device without the bases to establish a reference; (b) nucleobase in the EBL/HTL configuration; (c) nucleobase in the HBL/ETL configuration.
36
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
4.1. Nucleobases as an EBL/HTL Nucleobases were deposited as the EBL/HTL (hereafter called EBL for simplicity though hole transport has a significant role) in the standard phosphorescent OLED. The device structure for the EBL-OLED shown in Figure 4-1(b) was ITO [90nm] / PEDOT:PSS [40nm] / nucleobase [17nm]
/ CBP:Ir(ppy)3 (10wt%) [30nm] / BCP [12nm] / Alq3 [25nm] / LiF [<1nm] / Al [40nm]. A standard reference device (Figure 4-1(a)) was fabricated in each experiment to ensure consistency among the runs. The reference contained the conventional EBL and HBL materials NPB and BCP. The fabrication process followed the standard procedure described in section 2.2, except that the wafers required an extra step to deposit the nucleobases separately from the baseline, which exposed the wafers to air temporarily during the wafer exchange. The results of each experiment were repeated at least 3 times and the luminance and current at each particular voltage were averaged (see Appendix A for a discussion on calculating experimental error). The efficiencies were calculated based on the averaged values.
4.1.1. EBL Results The results of the baseline and each nucleobase OLED in the EBL configuration are compiled in Figure 4-2(a-d) showing current density, luminance, luminous efficacy, and current efficiency, respectively. The current density in Figure 4-2(a) shows that the current decreases sequentially in the order G, A, C, T, U as predicted by the nucleobase energy levels. G had the largest current compared to the other bases and confirmed its utility as a hole transporting layer. The current for G was only slightly below the reference, which was expected since it has a slightly higher HOMO level than the NPB, ~5.7 to 5.4, respectively. Conversely, U impedes hole transport, because it has the largest HOMO level (~6.7 eV), resulting in the lowest current density. The U will have more much potential as an HBL/ETL (discussed in section 4.2) due to its large orbital levels.
The current density for G was slightly lower than the baseline, also resulting in a later turn-on voltage as seen from the luminance graph in Figure 4-2(b). The turned-on voltage was defined as the point of detectable optical emission. The baseline turned on at 3.75 V, while G and A turned on at 4.75 and 5.0 V, respectively. The higher driving voltage was likely due to the higher HOMO energy levels of G and A compared to NPB (~Δ0.3-1.2 eV), diminishing hole injection from the electrode ITO/PEDOT. At low bias voltage, the G-EBL produced slightly higher luminance than the A-based device. However, at higher voltages the luminance does not increase as quickly, and
37
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs the A-EBL surpassed G at ~11 V. Although G was an excellent hole transport, it produced a maximum luminance of only 17,191 compared to 82,289 cd/m2 for A.
Figure 4-2 The performance of the nucleobases as an EBL/HTL: (a) current density versus voltage, (b) luminance versus voltage, (c) luminous efficacy versus current density, (d) current efficiency versus luminance.
38
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
Figure 4-3 Illumination of the OLED with adenine as the EBL.
Figure 4-2(c)(d) give the efficiencies in terms of luminous efficacy and current efficiency versus luminance. The A-based device outperformed all the bases including the baseline device in current efficiency. A photo of an operational device with the A as an EBL is shown in Figure 4-3. The peak current efficiency for A was 51.8 cd/A compared to 38 cd/A for the baseline. Moreover, the A had well-controlled efficiency roll-off and retained its high efficiency even at high luminance (40 cd/A at ~40,000 cd/m2). The luminous efficacy of A was slightly below the baseline, 21.1 vs 22.2 lum/W, due to its high driving voltage at lower current density, but surpassed the baseline after 1 mA/cm2. The G had the second best performance in efficiency. G began with efficiency above the baseline (44.7 cd/A) but had a large roll-off that quickly dropped below the baseline. Its lower driving voltage boosted its power efficacy to nearly match the baseline at 22.0 lum/W.
The performance diminished rapidly for the pyrimidines as an EBL following the energy level increase: C, T, and U. The C was more similar to the purines. It turned on at 5.0 V and reached efficiencies of 36.1 cd/A and 14.5 lum/W. However, the maximum luminance of C was only 5,646 cd/m2 as recombination shifted away from the emitting layer. The T and U have a large HOMO levels that halt hole current evident by the significantly higher turn-on voltages (7.75 V) and large
39
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs decrease in current density (Figure 4-2(a)). T exhibited only moderate luminance performance with a maximum of ~2,000 cd/m2 that resulted in a modest maximum efficiencies of ~23 cd/A and ~7 lum/W. The U EBL device was not functional and barely generated any detectable luminance (<10 cd/m2). It is evident by the current density that the higher HOMO level of the pyrimidines quench the hole transport to the emitting layer and the low efficiencies show that the high LUMO level failed to efficiently block the electrons.
4.1.2. Discussion of EBL results
The G-EBL was a more efficient hole transporter, but G diminished the OLED performance shown by the lower luminance output and lower current efficiency compared to A especially at higher voltages. A possible explanation is that G shifts the recombination away from the emitting layer. It has been shown that G is an excellent “hole getter” in OFET dielectrics and has a great
Figure 4-4 Possible charge transport mechanism in the EBL OLED for (a) guanine, (b) adenine, and (c) uracil.
40
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs affinity for holes.46 By placing the G slightly away from the semiconductor in the dielectric layer, the “hole getting” properties of G enhance the performance in OFETs. It has been stated elsewhere138 that G is a “sink” for holes, owing to its lower oxidation potential. In the OLED, the high current is evidence that the holes are received by the G layer, however, it is possible that the G fails to transport holes to the emitting layer, as shown in Figure 4-4(a), due to its affinity to oxidize that results in non-radiative recombination most likely in the G layer.
The exceptional performance of A as an EBL is attributed to its HOMO energy level and wide energy gap. The HOMO level of A is nearly commensurate with the CBP (~6.0 eV) to permit effective transport of holes into the emitting layer. The wide energy gap places the LUMO level - Δ0.7 compared to the CBP for effectively electron blocking to produce more radiative recombination, demonstrated in Figure 4-4(b). Additionally, the A has a small rolloff in efficiency, i.e. maintains high efficiency at high luminance. Decreased rolloff is typically a result of reducing quenching effects that occur when the emitting layer is over saturated with charge carriers and excitons at higher electric fields.126,127 It has been shown that materials with a wide energy gap can lead to an increase in efficiency by limiting charge accumulation at the emitting layer interface to prevent quenching.139,140
Figure 4-4(c) also shows the explanation of the decrease in performance for the pyrimidines. As the HOMO level increases beyond the energy level of CBP, hole injection is quelled. The pyrimidines will show much more potential as an HBL due to the large energy levels.
4.2. Nucleobases as an HBL/ETL Nucleobases were deposited as the HBL/ETL (hereafter called HBL) in place of the baseline with BCP as illustrated in device stack in Figure 4-1(c). A baseline was grown with each run and, similar to the EBL fabrication, an extra step was necessary to deposit the nucleobases separately from the baseline device. The nucleobases were deposited at the same thickness as the known optimized BCP thickness (~12 nm). The results of each experiment were repeated at least 3 times and the results of the luminance and current averaged at each voltage. The efficiencies were calculated based on the averaged values. The energy levels suggested that the trend for the HBL case should be opposite to the EBL case. The G and A, which performed well as an EBL, should perform poorly as an HBL with low luminance and efficiency. Conversely, C, T, and U should serve much better performance as HBLs than as EBLs.
41
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
4.2.1. HBL Results The results of the nucleobases as the HBL are presented in Figure 4-5. The predicted trend in performance (U>T>C>A>G) was especially evident in the efficiency (Figure 4-5(c)(d)). While there was some unexpected variance in the trend for current density (Figure 4-5(a)) and luminance (Figure 4-5(b)), the performance of the purines was low. The result for G as an HBL was a low current density, nearly zero luminance, and negligible efficiencies (<1 cd/A and lum/W). The G
Figure 4-5 The performance of the nucleobases as an HBL/ETL: (a) current density versus voltage, (b) luminance versus voltage, (c) luminous efficacy versus current density, and (d) current efficiency versus luminance.
42
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs has a small electron affinity that prohibited electron injection into the emitting layer evident by the low current. Similarly, the low ionization potential fails to efficiently block holes. The results for A as an HBL were somewhat perplexing. The current density for A was the highest of all of the bases. The turn-on voltage was 5.5 V and maximum luminance was 215 cd/m2, similar to some of the pyrimidines. Although the luminance was relatively high, it is clear that A is not an HBL since its efficiencies do not exceed 1 cd/A and lum/W.
The pyrimidines sequentially increased in performance in the expected trend C, T, and U. The C had the lowest performance of the pyrimidines. It turned on at 5.5 V and the peak efficiencies were 5.2 cd/A and 2.1 lum/W with a maximum luminance of 217 cd/m2. The T was the second best HBL of the bases. Its turn-on voltage was equivalent to C (5.5V) but the efficiencies were greater with a maximum of 15 cd/A and 5 lum/W, suggesting that the higher energy levels effectively retained the holes in the emitting layer. The maximum luminance of T was slightly higher at 362 cd/m2. The U had highest the performance of the bases and appeared to be the most promising HBL. It turned on noticeably lower than the other bases at 4.25 V. The high current density and higher maximum luminance (~4,000 cd/m2) indicated that more efficient electron transport was occurring into the EL. The higher current efficiency of 16 cd/A and luminous efficacy of 7.4 lum/W was due to effective hole blocking.
4.2.2. HBL Discussion Figure 4-6 shows possible mechanisms for select nucleobases in the HBL configuration. The G is undoubtedly prohibiting electron transport into the emitting layer, indicative of the low current, and failing to block holes as shown in Figure 4-6(a). The A-HBL in Figure 4-6(b) illustrate that its low efficiency was most likely due to the low ionization potential that fails to contain holes to the emitting layer. The HOMO level from Faber calculates A to be 6.0 eV, which is the equivalent to CBP, and is unable to block holes. Lee measures the HOMO level for A at 6.6 eV, which is the same energy level as the BCP (the HBL in the baseline structure). If A had similar HOMO levels as the BCP it would be expected that the A have a much higher current efficiency, which was not observed.
But the high current density for A remained puzzling. The luminance reached relatively high values and the current is the highest among the bases as an HBL. Based on the energy levels, it seems most plausible that the electron/hole pairs are recombining in the Alq3 layer, illustrated in
43
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
Figure 4-6(b). The matching energy levels of the emitting layer and A provide effective hole transport and the low electron affinity of A confines most of the electrons to the Alq3. The effective recombination in the Alq3, a fluorescent molecule emitting a green color, may result in an increase in luminance and current. Nevertheless, it is clear from the low efficiencies that the A HBL resulted in poor hole blocking ability and is most suitable as an EBL.
U had the greatest potential as an HBL due to its high energy levels. The U appears to be matched in electron affinity with the Alq3 and emitting layer. Furthermore, the relatively high current efficiency confirmed that the high HOMO confined holes to the emitting layer. Additional discussion will be presented in the subsequent section.
Figure 4-6 Mechanisms of charge transport in the HBL OLED for (a) guanine, (b) adenine, and (c) uracil.
44
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
4.2.3. HBL Optimization
While U demonstrated the greatest potential as an HBL, the results do not reach the performance of the reference device. In order to investigate the potential cause of the diminished operation, U was inserted in the HBL OLED configuration and varied in thickness between 8-17 nm and the BCP was varied in the reference OLED from 0-17 nm. The results are given in Figure 4-7. Figure 4-7(a) shows the current density versus voltage and Figure 4-7(b) shows the current efficiency versus luminance for the two devices with varying thicknesses. U(8nm) had a large current suggesting the layer was too thin to affect the charge carriers (holes or electrons). U(8nm) had a relatively high maximum luminance of 19,627 cd/m2 with poor current efficiency 7.7 cd/A, which resembled the results of the BCP at 0 nm. A mere 4 nm increase in thickness, U(12nm) decreased the current density nearly 1-2 orders of magnitude over the voltage range of operation. The large decrease in current seemed to indicate that the “bulk” properties of the U was being observed, that is U began to show its effect on charge carriers. U(12) had a higher current efficiency of 16.3 cd/A, however, the luminance decreased to 4,043 cd/m2. U(17nm) caused a slightly lower current density and resulted in a corresponding decrease in peak luminance (1,625 cd/m2) and efficiency (14.5 cd/A).
Figure 4-7 HBL optimization of the U and the reference (BCP) showing the effects on performance on (a) current density versus voltage and (b) current efficiency vs luminance.
Additionally, a reference OLED with BCP as the HBL was varied between 0-17 nm. BCP(12nm) was the standard reference device that had a luminance of 95,179 cd/m2 and current
45
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs efficiency of 38.5 cd/A. Upon increasing the layer thickness, the BCP(17nm) resulted in negligible change in performance. Removing the HBL, BCP(0nm), caused the current density to rise nearly half of a decade across the entire voltage range, and the maximum efficiency fell to 13 cd/A, which was expected since the device was without hole blocking ability. However, the larger current still maintained the high luminance output resulting in only a minor decrease in maximum luminance from the reference to 83,500 cd/m2.
The change in thickness had similar results for the U and the BCP. U(8nm) and BCP(0nm) both result in high current, relatively high maximum luminance, and low efficiency due to little or no hole blocking ability. At U(12nm), the hole blocking ability is effective evident by the rise in efficiency. However, the current density for U remained far below the reference, which affected the overall performance. The electron affinity for U is 3.0 eV and there should be no electron barrier to the CBP. It is most probable that the U has high resistivity that caused the electrons to transfer inefficiently to the emitting layer.
More exploration using U as a HBL is required, especially to verify resistivity and energy levels of the thin film. It is possible that using a different emitter or EIL could better match the energy levels with U. Unfortunately, U was not as high performing as the HBL configuration, which presently is a major limitation for an all-natural OLED. Nevertheless, the efficiency of U as an HBL showed that it is a hole blocking layer, which was the first successful attempt for a natural HBL material. The study could open doors to further investigation.
4.3. Optimization of EBL The EBL-OLED (section 4.1, Figure 4-1(a)) was further investigated. The thickness of the EBL was varied for select nucleobases, A and T, in order to optimize the full potential of the nucleobases in the EBL configuration. The results were compared with DNA in the EBL configuration and showed that the nucleobases exceeded the performance of the DNA and the reference device in efficiency.
4.3.1. Thin EBL OLED Experiments The thickness of the EBL was varied from ~5 to 30 nm in the EBL-OLED configuration described in section 4.1. In order to simplify the experiments, only two nucleobases were initially chosen: A (to represent the purines) and T (to represent the pyrimidines). U was later investigated
46
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs for EBL thicknesses between 5 and 17 nm since it is most similar to T. DNA-CTMA and NPB were also done in order to compare the effects of their thickness. Freeze-dried DNA (200kDa) was combined with CTAC following procedures described in literature126 and the resulting DNA- CTMA was dissolved in butanol at 0.25 wt% (for spin coating an 8 nm layer) and 0.5 wt% (for 16nm) and the solutions were mixed overnight. After the PEDOT:PSS baking step, DNA-CTMA solution was spin coated as the EBL on top of the PEDOT:PSS layer at 6000 rpm for 20 s and allowed to air dry for 10 min. The device was then transferred to the evaporation system for the deposition of the remaining layers excluding the NPB layer.
Figure 4-8 (a) Device stack of the EBL configuration. (b) The energy levels comparing the four different EBL NPB, A, T, and DNA-CTMA and the adjacent layers to the EBL in the OLED.
The device stack and a comparison of the energy levels for the four different EBL adjacent to the HIL and EL are given in Figure 4-8(a) and (b), respectively. Figure 4-9 plots the results of the maximum current efficiency versus the corresponding thickness of the device. T had a surprising result producing the greatest performance at 10 nm reaching 76 cd/A. Increasing the T beyond 10 nm diminished performance due to its large HOMO level, as was observed in section 4.1.1. Decreasing the T layer less than 10 nm also diminished efficiency. The A device had little fluctuation in efficiency with thickness variation, peaking to 54.7 cd/A at ~17 nm and remaining above 40 cd/A for all other thicknesses. DNA-CTMA was only efficient at ~8nm (0.25 wt. %) and significantly decreased performance with larger layers. U, although similar to T in energy levels, had a peak efficiency of 48 cd/A and showed a stark drop in efficiency after 8 nm. The NPB was less affected by thickness variation but had its peak performance at ~17nm.
47
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
Figure 4-9 The effect of varying the thickness of the nucleic acids in the EBL configuration compared to the reference.
The high performance of the T was further investigated at 10 nm. Representative I-V characteristics are given in Figure 4-10 for the case of the A, T, DNA-CTMA, and NPB. The turn- on voltage for the reference device was 3.75 V, the DNA device turned on at 4.0 V, the A device at 4.5 V, and the T device had a much larger turn-on voltage of 5.5 V. The increase in driving voltage is related to the increasing HOMO level since both the A and the T have higher ionization potentials than NPB and DNA, requiring a higher driving voltage. However, after the T device turned on, the current density had a much steeper slope and surpassed the A device. The DNA was higher than the bases in current density, due to the low HOMO level, but the current was not translated to emission.
Figure 4-10(b) contains the current efficiency plots for all the devices with respect to luminance. The peak efficiency for all the devices occurred between 200-400 cd/m2. The T had the highest peak efficiency of 76 cd/A at ~200 cd/m2 that remained high throughout the entire range: 51 cd/A at 10,000 cd/m2, 36 cd/A at 100,000 cd/m2, and 26 cd/A at its maximum luminance of 132,000 cd/m2 (obtained at 14 V). The A-based OLED had a maximum efficiency of 48 cd/A at 300 cd/m2 with a slight roll-off, decreasing to only 42 cd/A at 10,000 cd/m2. The NPB OLED had an efficiency of 37 cd/A at 150 cd/m2, which was less than half of the efficiency for the T device at the same luminance.
48
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
Figure 4-10 Results of the EBL at 10 nm for baseline, DNA-CTMA, A, and T: (a) current density versus voltage; (b) current efficiency versus luminance; (c) luminance versus current density; (d) current efficiency versus current density.
Luminance as a function of current density is given in Figure 4-10(c). T had the largest luminance value at any given current density followed by A, while NPB had a smaller luminance output. The T device had a maximum luminance of 132,000 cd/m2 followed by the NPB with a maximum of 113,000 cd/m2. The A device reached 93,000 cd/m2. Figure 4-10(d) is a similar plot to Figure 4-10(b) with respect to current density.
The DNA-CTMA as the EBL layer showed only modest improvements over the reference, but the bases were higher in performance. DNA-CTMA had a peak current efficiency of 43 cd/A at 230 cd/m2, which was higher than the baseline but not the nucleobase OLEDs. Its maximum
49
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs luminance was the lowest of all the devices at 62,000 cd/m2. While the current efficiency for DNA- CTMA was respectably high, the A and T-based OLEDs were the preferred materials for bio- OLEDs, not only due to their higher performance but in addition to their advantage of simpler fabrication processes.
The higher recombination efficiency for T was unexpected. Therefore, the subsequent section used AFM studies to investigate possible mechanisms for the higher efficiencies.
4.3.2. AFM Results of Thin Films AFM were studies were done to examine the surface morphology of the EBL films and the changes in the emitting layer (CBP) deposited on top of each EBL. The EBL materials T, A, and NPB were deposited on Si and AFM was first done on the EBL layers to observe the differences in morphology. Next, a CBP layer was deposited on top of each EBL, and AFM was done on CBP to observe the film formation of the emitting layer with the different EBL layer underneath. A layer of CBP was also deposited on Si to know its standard thin film quality. The parameters were grown under the same conditions as the OLED fabrication: 10 nm for each EBL and 30 nm for the CBP layers.
The column on the left of Figure 4-11 has AFM images of the EBL (T, A, NPB) on silicon, the reference CBP film on silicon, and the CBP scans with the EBL underneath (T/CBP; A/CBP; NPB/CBP). The horizontal scan resolution for each run was 1 µm and the vertical scale was set to 20 nm. T had a roughness of 1.76 nm and revealed a range of random crystallites in both surface periodicity and height distribution. The A scan had a similar roughness, 1.83 nm, but had a more uniform distribution of crystallites in periodicity and height distribution. The NPB layer had a relatively large roughness (3.40 nm) with similar grain size as A.
The CBP on Si, A, and NPB had similar results, but CBP on T had vastly different morphology. CBP on A had a similar roughness (1.89 nm) to that of CBP on Si. CBP on NBP had the same roughness as NBP on Si but had the grain size of CBP on Si. The CBP on both A and NPB had relatively similar grain size, but the CBP on T differed significantly. The CBP deposited on T had much higher roughness (3.25 nm) than T on Si (1.75 nm) and its morphology exhibited relatively deep (20+ nm) and wide (50-100 nm) craters uniformly dispersed throughout the layer. Horizontal line scans were sampled from each AFM images to create the illustration in the column on the right in Figure 4-11. Each CBP scan was stacked on top of its corresponding EBL to observe a
50
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs
Figure 4-11 (Left) AFM scans of each EBL deposited to 10 nm and CBP deposited on silicon to 30 nm. Also shown are AFM scans on CBP deposited on top of each EBL film. Scan length is 1 µm; (Right) sectional views of each AFM result plotted on vertical/horizontal axes with each CBP paired to its respective layer to elucidate how each EBL affects the growth of the emitting layer.
51
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs sectional view. Again, it is apparent that the CBP on T is considerably different from the other samples. It is interesting to compare the results of the CBP with the large columnar-like structures of T, as was shown previously (section 3.2.2) and in AFM scans. Though the thin T film does not appear to have tall aspect ratios in this AFM study, the CBP seems to create these pillar-like structures.
4.3.3. Discussion of Thymine EBL Optimization
The most plausible explanation for the high efficiency in the T-based EBL device is the large craters of the CBP layer created by the T as shown by the AFM. The deep craters of the CBP allow for enhanced electron injection from the BCP. Additionally, the irregular and non-periodic morphology of the T layer, along with the suspected higher resistivity of the material, causes hole traps that create a better electron/hole ratio. Figure 4-12 simplifies the explanation by estimating the peaks as high and low steps assuming that the large valleys in the CBP align with the valley of the T layer. The electrons from the BCP layer approach the CBP layer funneling towards the valleys of the CBP. The aggregation of electrons at these valleys encourage electron injection and recombination in the CBP, hence increasing recombination efficiency. Concurrently, the hole injection from the PEDOT into the T layer preferentially travel via the T valleys, due to the higher
Figure 4-12 (a) Simplified mechanism of hole and electron transport for T(10 nm) showing charge transport concentrated at the valleys of the BCP and T. (b) The smaller roughness of the A layer has more uniform charge injection.
52
Chapter 4 – Nucleobase Bio-OLEDs resistance and HOMO level of the T. The preferential injection at the valleys accomplishes two things: firstly, it places hole injection nearest the point of the electron aggregation, that is the valleys of the BCP; secondly, the peaks of T acts as a hole trap thereby controlling the injection into the CBP and providing a better electron/hole ratio. Hole traps have been noted in other work to enhance efficiency due to a surplus of holes.141
The thin T layer (8-12 nm) is optimized for the effect of hole traps and enhanced hole/electron injection at the valleys. As the thickness of T increases (see Figure 4-9), the T layer becomes too thick to inject holes into the CBP due to the high HOMO level of the T and the current efficiency drops dramatically. Conversely, the A layer shows a much more constant variation in current efficiency as an EBL. This is supported by the relatively smooth morphology of the A that facilitates a more uniform injection of the electrons and hole into the CBP layer. Variation in A thickness merely influences layer resistivity, but the enhanced hole/electron injection and hole trapping seen in the thin T layer are not observed for A or any of the other nucleobases.
It is misleading to believe that a higher HOMO level of T is the entire reason for regulated hole current to provide a better hole balance for a better electron/hole balance. Higher HOMO levels do not necessarily imply high efficiency, as was shown in Figure 4-9, a thin U layer does appreciably raise the efficiency, but the efficiency of U is ~20% less than T. Interestingly, the thickness variation in Figure 4-9 shows the nucleobases and the baseline reaching no greater than ~55 cd/A.
In summary, there may be several factors contributing to the high efficiency of T including high HOMO levels and higher resistivity, but the craters appear to be unique to the efficiency increase for T. Much more investigation is necessary, especially to decrease the driving voltage, but the increase in OLED efficiency is a promising result for natural electronics because it reveals that the nucleobases are capable of achieving high efficiency and luminance.