Comparison of Charge‐Carrier Transport in Thin Films of Spiro‐Linked Compounds and Their Corresponding Parent Compounds

Abstract The charge‐transport properties of the spiro‐linked compounds 2,2′,7,7′‐tetrakis(diphenylamino)‐9,9′‐spirobifluorene, 2,2′,7,7′‐tetrakis(N,N′‐di‐p‐methylphenylamino)‐9,9′‐spirobifluorene, 2,2′,7,7′‐tetra(m‐tolyl‐phenylamino)‐9,9′‐spirobifluorene, and 2,2′,7,7′‐tetra(N‐phenyl‐1‐naphthylamine)‐9,9′‐spirobifluorene, and their corresponding parent compounds, N,N,N′,N′‐tetraphenylbenzidine, N,N,N′,N′‐tetrakis(4‐methylphenyl)benzidine, and N,N′‐bis(3‐methylphenyl)‐(1,1′‐biphenyl)‐4,4′‐diamine, N,N′‐diphenyl‐N,N′‐bis(1‐naphthyl)‐1,1′‐biphenyl‐4,4′‐diamine, are investigated. The field‐effect mobilities of charge carriers in thin films of the parent compounds are slightly higher than those of the spiro‐linked compounds. However, the transistor action of the parent‐compound thin films vanishes because the films crystallize after being stored in ambient atmosphere for a few days. In contrast, the hole mobilities in thin films of the spiro‐linked compounds do not change significantly after the samples are stored in ambient atmosphere for up to nine months. Also discussed is the temperature dependency of the mobilities of charge carriers, which is presented using two models, namely the Arrhenius and the Gaussian disorder models.