Controlling the Dominant Length Scale of Liquid–Liquid Phase Separation in Spin‐coated Organic Semiconductor Films
Source abstract
Abstract
Organic electronic devices are often made by solution processing a multi‐component ink. During solution processing, for example, via spin coating, the solvent evaporates and the solid components deposit on the substrate. The morphology of this layer can range from well‐mixed to extensively phase separated. To optimize device performance, it is essential to control the degree and dominant length scale of phase separation. Currently, the mechanism of phase separation induced by solvent evaporation is poorly understood. It has been shown that length scales are influenced by spin speed, drying time, final layer thickness and the ratio between the solid components, but a complete experimental dataset and consistent theoretical understanding are lacking. In this contribution, in situ measurements during spin coating and a simple numerical model are used to understand the drying process. In addition, an advanced image analysis of transmission electron micrographs of films processed under a wide range of processing conditions is carried out. A normalized drying rate is proposed as the key parameter that controls the dominant length scale of phase separation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fluid Dynamics and Thin Films · Block Copolymer Self-Assembly · Organic Light-Emitting Diodes Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Molecular Materials and Nanosystems & Institute for Complex Molecular Systems Eindhoven University of Technology P.O. Box 513 5600 MB Eindhoven The Netherlands
Dutch Polymer Institute (DPI) P.O. Box 902 5600 AX Eindhoven The Netherlands
Institute of Stochastics Ulm University D‐89069 Ulm Germany
BASF Schweiz AG Schwarzwaldallee 215 CH‐4002 Basel Switzerland
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/adma.20040068410.1002/adma.200400684 ↗
2. 10.1063/1.277532310.1063/1.2775323 ↗
3. 10.1063/1.134583410.1063/1.1345834 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.tsf.2005.12.07110.1016/j.tsf.2005.12.071 ↗
5. 10.1002/adma.20090369710.1002/adma.200903697 ↗
6. 10.1002/adma.20130256310.1002/adma.201302563 ↗
7. 10.1038/nmat220710.1038/nmat2207 ↗
8. 10.1021/jp409757m10.1021/jp409757m ↗
9. 10.1021/la048561h10.1021/la048561h ↗
10. 10.1016/0376-7388(91)80073-F10.1016/0376-7388(91)80073-F ↗
11. 10.1016/0032-3861(96)81620-X10.1016/0032-3861(96)81620-X ↗
12. 10.1038/3503653910.1038/35036539 ↗
13. Cheng S. Z. D. · 2008 · 45
14. 10.1063/1.44574710.1063/1.445747 ↗
15. 10.1063/1.44912410.1063/1.449124 ↗
16. 10.1021/ma971056p10.1021/ma971056p ↗
17. 10.1007/s10051005067210.1007/s100510050672 ↗
18. 10.1016/S0378-4371(96)00471-210.1016/S0378-4371(96)00471-2 ↗
19. 10.1002/polb.2328810.1002/polb.23288 ↗
20. 10.1021/ja405493j10.1021/ja405493j ↗
21. 10.1039/c3ra42636j10.1039/c3ra42636j ↗
22. 10.1021/ma070712a10.1021/ma070712a ↗
23. 10.1021/nl901511a10.1021/nl901511a ↗
24. 10.1016/j.orgel.2014.08.06410.1016/j.orgel.2014.08.064 ↗
25. 10.1002/adfm.20140226010.1002/adfm.201402260 ↗
26. 10.1021/ja408923y10.1021/ja408923y ↗
27. 10.1023/A:101538891272910.1023/A:1015388912729 ↗
28. 10.1142/S021886359700002210.1142/S0218863597000022 ↗
29. 10.1063/1.86951910.1063/1.869519 ↗
30. 10.1021/ma047714510.1021/ma0477145 ↗
31. 10.1038/nmat147610.1038/nmat1476 ↗
32. 10.1140/epje/i2010-10670-710.1140/epje/i2010-10670-7 ↗
33. 10.1021/nn201210e10.1021/nn201210e ↗
34. 10.1039/C2TC00026A10.1039/C2TC00026A ↗
35. 10.1039/c3ta01530k10.1039/c3ta01530k ↗
36. 10.1063/1.172330010.1063/1.1723300 ↗
37. 10.1149/1.208556310.1149/1.2085563 ↗
38. Burger W. · 2010
39. Soille P. · 2003
40. 10.1038/nmeth.201910.1038/nmeth.2019 ↗
41. 10.1002/978047072516010.1002/9780470725160 ↗
42. In Figure 3c not only the dominant length scale is shown but also the shoulder found in the Fourier transforms as indicated in Figure 1. The position of the shoulder is mathematically found by detecting the smallest slope in the radially integrated Fourier transform. This does not detect the actual peak position which underlies the shoulder but is a representative distance which is more strictly defined. The scaling in Equation (3) as found for the main FT peak is also valid for the shoulder. The origin of the shoulder is presently unknown and presented as an experimental observation.