Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organic Electronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orgel

Polymer-based scattering layers for internal light extraction from

organic light emitting diodes
Daniel Riedel a, b, *, Thomas Wehlus a, Thilo C.G. Reusch a, Christoph J. Brabec b, c
a
OSRAM OLED GmbH, Wernerwerkstrasse. 2, D-93049, Regensburg, Germany
b €t Erlangen-Nürnberg - Materials for Electronics and Energy Technology (i-MEET), Martensstrasse 7, D-91058, Erlangen,
Friedrich-Alexander-Universita
Germany
c
ZAE Bayern e.V., Bereich Erneuerbare Energie, Haberstrasse 2a, D-91058, Erlangen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Efficient light extraction for organic light emitting diodes (OLED) using scalable processes and low-cost
Received 7 December 2015 materials are important prerequisites for the future commercialization of OLED lighting devices. The
Received in revised form light-extraction technology exhibited in this paper uses polymer-based high-refractive index scattering
5 February 2016
layers processed from solution. The scatter matrix formulation incorporates two types of nanoparticles
Accepted 6 February 2016
Available online xxx
for refractive index tuning and scattering, respectively. Planarization by the same material in order to
reduce surface defects was critical for achieving highly increased device yield. Highly efficient and
defect-free large-area (1.8 cm2) white OLED devices were fabricated on top of the scattering layer in a
Keywords:
Organic light-emitting diodes
bottom emitter configuration. Light extraction enhancement leads to an overall efficiency gain of up to
Internal light extraction 81% for luminances of 5000 cd m
2.
Scattering layers © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Planarization
OLED

1. Introduction
Today, organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are a promising
technology for the future of illumination. OLED's unique features
like transparency, flexibility and thinness offer new possibilities for
design and application. However, to be competitive with conven-
tional light sources, the price per lumen needs to be reduced [1].
Increasing light extraction is an appropriate approach to increase
the performance of the device [2]. However, the additional cost of
light extraction measures should be kept to a minimum. Many
schemes for increasing the light extraction in OLEDs have been
proposed [3]. In this work, we present an outcoupling technology
for internal light extraction which combines the benefits of low-
cost materials, scalable processes, and high efficiency gain.
Due to the different refractive indices of the substrate (n ~ 1.5)
and the organic layers (n ~ 1.8) e where light emission takes place e
light is trapped by total internal reflection. The organic layers are
sandwiched between a reflective metallic cathode and a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: daniel.riedel@osram-oled.com (D. Riedel), thomas.wehlus@
osram-oled.com (T. Wehlus), thilo.reusch@osram-oled.com (T.C.G. Reusch),
christoph.brabec@fau.de (C.J. Brabec).
transparent anode (indium tin oxide - ITO). Around 30% is trapped
in the glass substrate and ~50% in the high refractive index region of
the ITO/organic layers [4]. Hence, only ~20% of the generated light
can escape the device. The angular range in that the escaping light
propagates is called the escape cone. By adding a light extraction
layer, the trapped light can be redistributed, so that some of it also
reaches the escape cone.
The light trapped in the substrate can be accessed using external
extraction on the side of the substrate that faces air. Common
techniques are micro lens arrays or scattering layers attached to the
substrate after processing the OLED devices on the opposite site of
the substrate [5,6] The substrate modes and the ITO/organic-modes
can be redistributed by introducing internal light extraction layers
(IEL), which results in enhanced light out-coupling [3,7,8]. To access
the light trapped inside the organic layers, the refractive index of
the IEL layers needs to be equal to or higher than that of the ITO/
organic layers. Equally important for the efficiency gain induced by
the internal light extraction layer are the layer's other optical
properties such as haze and absorption. The lower the absorption of
the IEL, the higher the overall efficiency.
Light scattering, micro lenses or photonic structures can be used
for internal light recycling [3]. Some of those techniques are either
very expensive or cannot be applied to large areas or high volume

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgel.2016.02.004
1566-1199/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
28 D. Riedel et al. / Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33
throughput. A promising low-cost approach with commercial po-
tential is the use of volume scattering layers. Shiang et al. already
presented a deep discussion about the outcoupling of light for
volumetric scattering layers of different haze values [9]. C.-H. Shin
et al. reported scattering layers made of polystyrene with
embedded Al2O3 particles to enhance the light extraction of OLEDs
by 40% [10]. The absolute values of the external quantum efficiency
(EQE) were conducted at a current density of 53 mA cm
2 and are
raised from 1.2% to 1.8%. For further improvement an index-
matched scattering medium is needed, to access and redistribute
wave-guided ITO/organic modes. Chang et al. reported a fourfold
power efficiency improvement at 5000 cd m
2 of blue phospho-
rescent OLED by using nanocomposite scattering layers with high
refractive index, which consist of a transparent photoresist and
TiO2 particles in two different sizes [11]. Small particles with a size
of 25 nm were used to raise the refractive index and larger particles
to induce scattering. Blue-emitting OLED devices were manufac-
tured on top of the scattering layers with an active area of
2  2 mm2. The external quantum efficiency (power efficacy) of
those devices at 1000 cd m
2 were raised to 25.2% (37.1 lm W
1)
compared to 11.0% (11.6 lm W
1) of the reference with a strong roll-
off for higher luminances. The resulting gain factors showed a
strong variation with current density. The results are promising but
do not show if the technology is applicable on large areas with a
high production yield. In the present work, a similar nano-
composite material system is evaluated and the results are shown
on larger areas, with a statistic of plenty manufactured white-light
emitting OLED devices to show the need for planarization layers on
those composite scattering layers, in order to achieve high pro-
duction yield.
Besides refractive index matching of the IEL, the surface
roughness and especially surface defects are critical properties
[12e14]. Both holes and spikes can result in electrical defects or
short circuit the OLED devices deposited on the IEL. Each electrical
defect leads to a device failure. For general illumination, large
emitting areas are needed, and thus the surface of the IEL layer
must be defect-free on a large scale. Most of the current publica-
tions evaluate IEL layers on very small OLED areas, and so if
considered for the large areas required for commercialization,
many of the presented techniques are too complex, hard to
manufacture, very expensive, or not feasible for high volume
throughput. This work consequently concentrates on low-cost
materials and processing and exhibits the potential for future
application to large area OLED devices.
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Analysis of the scattering layers
A scattering layer needs to fulfill several requirements in order
to be used as an internal light extraction layer in OLED devices. The
requirements for the particular device architecture, shown in Fig. 1,
are processing-, surface-quality- and optics-related. Solution pro-
cessing is a fast and scalable approach for layer deposition. Many
different techniques are possible, including offset or inkjet printing,
slot die coating or doctor blading.
An optical analysis of the two scattering layers used as IEL in
device type I and II is shown in Fig. 2 a). This angular resolved
scattering measurement shows similar light distributions for both
layer architectures, which indicates that the additional planariza-
tion coating, stacked on top of the scattering layer, does not affect
the scattering capabilities. Direct transmission and specular
reflection for the planarized layer is slightly higher, due to reduced
surface roughness and therefore suppressed surface scattering. The
resulting haze induced by the IEL is ~0.75 (±0.05) evaluated at a
wavelength of 550 nm. The refractive index of the matrix of the
volume scattering layer, shown in Fig. 2 b), is higher or at least equal
to that of the organic layers (n ~ 1.7e1.9) and thus light extraction of
both ITO/organic-modes and substrate modes is expected. The
tailored refractive index of the material can be described by the
effective medium approach and can be calculated according to the
volume fractions of the polymer and the nano-fillers [15]. The
extinction coefficient, also shown in Fig. 2 b), is below <10
3 in the
region of the typical OLED emission spectrum, between 450 and
700 nm, which is sufficiently low in order to neglect absorption
losses. Beside optical properties, such as absorption within the
scattering layer by either the polymer matrix or scattering particles,
the surface quality of the IEL is a key requirement for zero-defect
OLED deposition. This is the most critical attribute when applying
the particle-based polymeric scattering layer to OLEDs. Due to the
architecture, all of the active layers were deposited on top of the
scattering layer. Each topological defect can lead to an electrical
defect in the OLED devices. Both spikes and holes in the surface of
the IEL represent critical defects for further OLED processing. To
reduce roughness, spikes and holes, a planarization layer is intro-
duced on top of the IEL. It is made of the same high refractive index
material used for the matrix of the scattering layer, but without the
dispersed scatter particles. Therefore it is perfectly index-matched
to the IEL and has no effect on light extraction capabilities,
neglecting general absorption.
To evaluate the surface quality of the IEL and the planarized IEL
respectively, Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) and Scanning Elec-
tron Microscope (SEM) measurements were obtained. The AFM and
SEM images of the IEL and the planarized IEL are shown in Fig. 3.
The overall roughness is dramatically reduced by the planarization
layer. For a 20  20 mm2 area measured by AFM, the root-mean-
square roughness was reduced from 35 nm to 7 nm. In other
words, planarization reduces roughness by a factor of 5. It should be
noted that the roughness was only measured on a small area and is
therefore merely an indicator that the layer may be usable for
further OLED deposition. For a complete validation of the surface
quality, the OLED device itself is the best test vehicle, as surface
irregularities will result in shunts and easily detectable optical
artifacts.
2.2. Analysis of OLED devices
White-emitting OLED devices, with an active area of 1.8 cm2,
were fabricated on the pure (device type I) and planarized (device
type II) IEL. Devices with the same stack and size, without any
additional layer between the glass substrate and the active stack,
were fabricated as a reference. An overview of the used device
structures is shown in Fig. 1. A tandem structure was used [16], with
a phosphorescent yellow emission unit (Y unit) and a fluorescent
blue (B unit) one separated by a charge generation layer (CGL)
[17,18]. Electron and hole injection layers (EIL/HIL) and electron and
hole transport layers (ETL/HTL) inject charge carriers into the de-
vice and transport them to the emission units [19]. The total
thickness of the organic stack was 509 nm. The layer architecture
was optimized by simulation to achieve white emission according
to the simulation method presented by D. Setz et al. [20] The
optimization was performed for maximum light output to air at a
targeted white color point. It should be noted that our results are
not specific to the details of the material set used and similar results
can be achieved using other OLED stack architectures. For statistics,
21 devices each of types I and II were manufactured and seven of
the reference.
All devices were electro-optically characterized. The cur-
rentevoltage characteristics of the three device types are shown in
Fig. 4 a). All devices exhibit a characteristic diode behavior with
 D. Riedel et al. / Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33 29

Fig. 1. Schematic cross section of the device architecture. The left architecture represents the reference “mirror” device without any IEL. Device type I comprises the same active
layers (ITO, organics, cathode) as the reference, but with an additional IEL layer between the substrate and the ITO anode. Device type II is manufactured with an additional
planarization layer on top of the IEL layer.

1 2.2 1x10
Transmission Reflection refractive index n

E xtinction coefficient (k)

0.1
R efractive index (n)
extinction coefficient k 9x10
2.1
Device type I
Rel. Intensity

0.01 Device type II 8x10

2.0
1E-3 7x10

1.9
1E-4 6x10

1E-5 1.8 5x10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
a) b)
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Angle /° Wavelength /nm

Fig. 2. a) Angular resolved light distribution of the scattering layers according to the two device types, at a wavelength of 550 nm. b) Refractive index and extinction coefficient of
the polymer-based nanocomposite resin used as matrix for the scattering layer.

Fig. 3. Atomic Force Microscope and Scanning Electron Microscope images of the IEL (upper region) and the planarized IEL (lower region). The AFM image is merged out of the
distinct AFM measurements of the IEL (device type I) and planarized IEL (device type II), using the same height scale.

turn-on-voltages of 4.8 V. Surface defects and irregularities mani- low defect level. The leakage current density of device type I at 2 V
fest themselves in shunts in large-area OLED devices and thus in is around 0.15 mA cm
2 and is therefore significantly higher than
leakage currents or shorted devices. The leakage current density at that of the reference.
2 V of the reference is below 10
3 mA cm
2, which indicates a very By applying a planarization layer on top of the IEL layer in device
30
100
10
Current density / mA cm-²
1
0.1
0.01
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0 1
a)
100
10
Current density / mA cm-²
1
0.1
0.01
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0 1
c)
Fig. 4. a) Current density as function of voltage for all devices of types I & II and the reference. b) Schematic top-view of the substrate with all devices and a rating of the leakage
current indicating electrical defects by color code and categories A, B and C (green (A): <2 x average reference level; yellow (B): >¼2 x average reference level; red (C): >¼10 x
average reference level). c) Current density as function of voltage for the remaining devices of type II and reference without discarded devices due to electrical defects. d) Schematic
top-view of the substrate with an overview of discarded and remaining devices with proper electric functionality. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
type II, the level of leakage current is highly reduced close to the
reference level. For driving voltages higher than the turn-on
voltage, device type I has a lower current density than both other
device types. Different sheet resistances of the ITO, sputtered on
glass for the reference devices (39 U sq
1) and on IEL layer for
device type I (58 U sq
1) respectively, might explain this decrease.
The lower current density observed for device type I may occur due
to the lower lateral conductivity of the ITO anode and the subse-
quent voltage drop within the anode. The ITO sputtered on the
planarized IEL layers used in device type II exhibit a sheet resis-
tance (44 U sq
1) slightly higher but comparable to the reference, in
line with the observed high current density for device type II. The
difference in sheet resistance between device type I and II may be
due to the influence of the growth surface morphology on the ITO
layer. Nucleation effects induced by subsurface TiO2 particles in
type I could explain higher sheet resistances and higher injection
barriers as compared to type II.
Considering the current density at a bias of 2 V for each device
and sorting them in three groups (green (A): <2 x average reference
level; yellow (B): >¼ 2 x average reference level; red (C): >¼10 x
average reference level) results in the color-coded device map
shown in Fig. 4 b). Devices according to group A (green) can be
considered free of electrical defects. Small defects occur due to
small particles or surface defects on the substrate layers. These are
responsible for elevated leakage currents and are represented by
group B (yellow). Rough surfaces of the substrate layers or larger
particles result in electrical defects leading to very high leakage
currents or short circuits. These devices are represented by group C
(red). One of the reference devices seems to have a small defect as
well as 6 of the 21 devices of type II and belong therefore to group B.
D. Riedel et al. / Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33
Reference
Device type I
Device type II
all device
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Voltage / V
b)
Reference
Device type II
leaking devices discarded
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Voltage / V
d)
All device failures assigned to group B are statistically distributed
on the substrate as shown in Fig. 4 d). The high roughness of the
pure IEL layer of type I devices results in high defect level densities
of all OLED devices. Hence, all OLED devices of type I are fall into
group C (red). The data of all devices of group B and C (yellow, red),
i.e. all devices with a leakage current at least twice as high as the
average reference level, was discarded for a reevaluation of the
currentevoltage characteristics as shown in Fig. 4 c). The discarded
devices are schematically shown Fig. 4 d). As a result, the cur-
rentevoltage characteristics of the reference and type II devices
with planarized IEL show good very agreement even below the
turn-on voltage, which indicates that the planarization completely
smoothes the underlying IEL layer. This critical processing step
enables a production yield improvement from 0% for device type I
to 75% for device type II and is therefore seen as a critical step for
the commercialization of volumetric particle-based scattering
layers for large area OLED devices.
2.3. Electro-optical results and efficiencies
Electro-optical measurements of the fabricated devices are
discussed in this section. All optical measurements were conducted
with an integrating sphere. With turn-on voltages of 4.8 V ac-
cording to the currentevoltage characteristics in Fig. 4 c), the
luminance curves in Fig. 5 a) follow typical behaviors. Taking into
account the same current density at the same voltage for both
reference and type II devices, the outcoupling of trapped ITO/
organic as well as substrate modes results in higher luminance
values of device type II compared to the reference. The emission
spectra at different angles of incidence for the reference and device
 D. Riedel et al. / Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33 31

60

Device type II Device type II

10000 Reference
Reference

Luminous efficacy / lm W-1

50

Luminance / cd m-2
1000

40
100

30
10

1 20
3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Voltage / V Luminance / cd m-²

a) b)
0.07 0.07
Reference Device type II
0.06 0° 0.06 0°
Radiance / W sr-1m-2nm-1

Radiance / W sr-1m-2nm-1
15° 15°
0.05 30° 0.05 30°
45° 45°
0.04 60° 0.04 60°
0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00
400 500 600 700 400 500 600 700
c) Wavelength /nm d) Wavelength /nm

Fig. 5. a) Luminance as function of voltage for the reference and planarized IEL type II devices. b) Luminous efficacy at different luminance values for the reference and planarized
IEL type II devices. c) Emission spectra at different angles of incidence of the reference. d) Emission spectra at different angles of incidence of device type II.

type II are given in Fig. 5 c) and d). The reference shows a strong
angular dependent spectra with changes over the whole wave-
length range. By introducing the scattering layer in device type II
the spectra are nearly angular independent and conduct significant
higher radiances. Slight superimposed modulations occur due to
thin film interference effects within the planarization layer.
Luminous efficacy at different luminance levels is shown in Fig.
5 b). At 1000 cd m
2, the reference obtains 32 lm W
1 and device
type II 53 lm W
1. An efficiency roll-off, due to losses for higher
current densities, leads to a decrease of the luminous efficacy at
higher luminance [21]. Additional light extraction induced by the
volume scattering layer leads to an efficiency gain of 1.67 at
1000 cd m
2, 1.71 at 2000 cd m
2 and 1.81 at 5000 cd m
2. The
increasing gains for higher luminances are the result the compar-
ison at same brightness levels. The reference and the type II devices
with light extraction operate at different points of the cur-
rentevoltage characteristic to obtain the same external brightness
level: OLED devices with light extraction require less current den-
sity to generate the same luminous flux as devices without light
extraction. Hence, the devices with light extraction are less affected
by the before mentioned efficiency roll-off: In general, the more
current flows, the more quenching occurs, leading to a decrease of
luminous efficacy [22]. In other words, overall non-radiative losses
are reduced due to the decreased amount of injected charge car-
riers that are required to operate the device at a given brightness.
The comparison of the EQE at a constant driving current density is
the best values to evaluate light extraction capabilities. The EQE
values of the reference and devices of type II are given in Table 1.
They exhibit a comparable roll off and result in a nearly constant
gain factor of 1.6 for all current densities. This consistency is a hint
for a well optimized stack design because no hidden internal wave
guided modes are filled with energy which might result in a gain
factor roll-off.
3. Conclusion
We present an effective and scalable technology to increase the
internal light extraction in OLED devices. The technology is based
on polymeric high-refractive index scattering layers deposited from
solution on the substrate for OLEDs in a bottom-emitting configu-
ration. An efficiency gain of up to 1.81 at 5000 cd m
2 and a con-
stant gain of 1.6 for the EQE at constant driving current density
were demonstrated for white-light-emitting OLED devices with an
active are of 1.8 cm2. Compared to published values for light
extraction of white-emitting OLED devices the enhancement is
further improved by reducing absorption losses inside the IEL and
the OLED stack itself. This key parameters according to the theory of
light extraction considers the absorption losses inside the organic
stack together with the limited reflectivity of the cathode in the
combined effective reflectivity [23]. The simulated effective
reflectivity of the used multilayered OLED stack including ITO and
the cathode exhibit a mean value of 80% over an averaged wave-
length range of 400e750 nm and averaged angles from 0 to 90 .
Improving this entity is one of the most critical parameter to
enhance light extraction with scattering layers.
Surface roughness is a key factor in OLED device yield. We
demonstrate a drastically improvement of the device yield from 0%
to 75%, considering high leakage currents as device failures, by
adding a planarization layer of the same material as the matrix
material of the scattering layer. Because it is inherently perfectly
index-matched, it has no adverse optical effect on light extraction.
Polymeric scattering layers and the respective processes show
32 D. Riedel et al. / Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33
Table 1
External quantum efficiencies conducted at a constant driving current density of the device type II with the planarized IEL compared to the reference and the resulting gain
factors.
Current density [mA cm
2] EQE [%] (reference)
1 22.3
2 22.3
5 21.8
10 20.8
20 19.2
potential for cost-efficient production. For commercialization, the
in-line production yield needs to be further improved and process
development on coating and dispersion of the nanocomposite
scattering material needs to be done. The use of those IEL is not
limited to bottom-emitting OLED devices but may also extend to
top-emitting and flexible OLEDs in the future.
4. Experimental section
Scattering layer fabrication: All scattering layers and OLED de-
vices were fabricated on polished soda lime glass substrates
(0.7 mm thickness) with a size of 20  20 cm2. The solvent-based
polymer solution, used for the scattering layers, consists of
dispersed TiO2 nanoparticles in an acrylic-based resin. The solid
concentration of the dispersion was 20% (by weight) and was dis-
solved in propylene glycol methyl ether. These TiO2 nano-fillers
with a size of 40 nm raise the effective refractive index of the
material and has a weight percentage of more than 60% (by weight)
of the solid content of the dispersion. Additional TiO2 scatter par-
ticles (Kronos 2222) with a mean size of several hundred nano-
meters were dispersed to adjust the haze of the scattering layer
with a final solid volume concentration of 9% (by volume). The
deposition of the scattering and planarization layers was done by
doctor blade with a blade speed of 1.5 m min
1 and a gap of
500 mm. All layers were dried at elevated temperature (80  C) and
UV cured with standard UV fluorescent tubes for 5 min with an
additional post-bake (200  C) for 60 min.
Layer thickness: Layer thicknesses were measured by a profil-
ometer (P-16 þ Stylus KLA Tencor). The thicknesses of the scat-
tering layers were around 3 mm without and around 5 mm with the
additional planarization layer.
OLED manufacturing: The ITO was sputtered at room tempera-
ture with static face-to-face sputtering targets, while the substrate
was rotating for homogeneous layer deposition. The ITO thickness
was 130 nm. The organic layers were prepared using standard
thermal evaporation techniques at a base pressure of 10
7 m bar at
deposition rates ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 nm s
1. A silver layer was
deposited on top of the organic stack as cathode with a thickness of
200 nm. The devices were sealed by a thin film encapsulation and
covered with a glass lid for mechanical protection.
Angular resolved scatter measurement: The bare scattering layers
coated on glass were measured with a standard goniometer setup
(Gon360 by Instrument System) with an incident collimated light
beam perpendicular to the surface. An incoherent broad-band
white light source was used and the measurements were evalu-
ated at 550 nm.
Electro-optical measurements: The OLED device edges were
blackened to avoid side emission due to wave-guided substrate
modes. All optical measurements were conducted with an inte-
grating sphere with a connected calibrated fiber coupled array
spectrometer (Instrument Systems CAS 140). A source measure-
ment unit (Keithley model 2400 SourceMeter) was used as power
supply. Prior to the measurement, a calibration was done by using a
halogen lamp.
EQE [%] (device type II) Gain factor
36.2 1.63
36.2 1.62
35.1 1.61
33.5 1.61
30.9 1.61
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge financial support by the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the
contract FKZ 13N12240 (project “OLYMP”).
References
[1] McKinsey & Company Inc., Lighting the Way: Perspectives on the Global
Lighting Market, second ed., 2012.
[2] K. Hong, J.-L. Lee, Review paper: recent developments in light extraction
technologies of organic light emitting diodes, Electron. Mater. Lett. 7 (2011)
77e91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13391-011-0601-1.
[3] K. Saxena, V.K. Jain, D.S. Mehta, A review on the light extraction techniques in
organic electroluminescent devices, Opt. Mater. 32 (2009) 221e233, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optmat.2009.07.014.
[4] D.S. Mehta, K. Saxena, Light out-coupling strategies in organic light emitting
devices 1, Proc. ASID’06 2 (2006) 198e201, in: http://www.iitk.ac.in/asid06/
proceedings/papers/TP2_02.pdf.
€ller, S.R. Forrest, Improved light out-coupling in organic light emitting
[5] S. Mo
diodes employing ordered microlens arrays, J. Appl. Phys. 91 (2002)
3324e3327, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1435422.
[6] R. Bathelt, D. Buchhauser, C. Ga €rditz, R. Paetzold, P. Wellmann, Light extrac-
tion from OLEDs for lighting applications through light scattering, Org. Elec-
tron. 8 (2007) 293e299, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgel.2006.11.003.
[7] H.W. Chang, J. Lee, S. Hofmann, Y. Hyun Kim, L. Mueller Meskamp, B. Luessem,
et al., Nano-particle based scattering layers for optical efficiency enhancement
of organic light-emitting diodes and organic solar cells, J. Appl. Phys. 113
(2013) 204502, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4807000.
[8] H. Greiner, Light extraction from organic light emitting diode substrates
simulation and experiment, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 46 (2007) 4125e4137, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.46.4125.
[9] J.J. Shiang, T.J. Faircloth, A.R. Duggal, Experimental demonstration of increased
organic light emitting device output via volumetric light scattering, J. Appl.
Phys. 95 (2004) 2889, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1644038.
[10] C.-H. Shin, E.Y. Shin, M. Kim, J. Lee, Y. Choi, Nanoparticle scattering layer for
improving light extraction efficiency of organic light emitting diodes, Opt.
Express 23 (2015) A133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.00A133.
[11] C.-H. Chang, K.-Y. Chang, Y.-J. Lo, S.-J. Chang, H.-H. Chang, Fourfold power
efficiency improvement in organic light-emitting devices using an embedded
nanocomposite scattering layer, Org. Electron. 13 (2012) 1073e1080, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgel.2012.02.017.
[12] V.S. Veerasamy, T.K. Hatwar, Large area deposition of a light out-coupling
layer stack on low cost soda lime glass substrate, SID 2014 Dig. P-137
(2014) 1507e1510.
[13] C.H. Jonda, A.B.R. Mayer, U. Stolz, Surface roughness effects and their influence
on the degradation of organic light emitting devices, J. Mater. Sci. 35 (2000)
5645e5651, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004842004640.
[14] D. Cho, J. Shin, J. Moon, S. Park, C. Joo, Surface control of planarization layer on
embossed glass for light extraction in OLED, ETRI J. (2014) 1e8. http://etrij.
etri.re.kr/etrij/common/GetFile.do?method¼filedownload&fileid¼ERY-
1405906978409 (accessed 25.07.14).
[15] A. Pradana, C. Kluge, M. Gerken, Tailoring the refractive index of nanoimprint
resist by blending with TiO_2 nanoparticles, Opt. Mater. Express 4 (2014) 329,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OME.4.000329.
[16] N. Ide, H. Tsuji, N. Ito, Y. Matsuhisa, S. Houzumi, T. Nishimori, White OLED
devices and processes for lighting applications, Proc. SPIE 7722 (2010), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.854314.
[17] T. Matsumoto, T. Nakada, J. Endo, K. Mori, N. Kawamura, A. Yokoi, et al.,
Multiphoton organic EL device having charge generation layer, SID Symp. Dig.
Tech. Pap. 34 (2003) 979e981, http://dx.doi.org/10.1889/1.1832449.
[18] M.K. Fung, K.M. Lau, S.L. Lai, C.W. Law, M.Y. Chan, C.S. Lee, et al., Charge
generation layer in stacked organic light-emitting devices, J. Appl. Phys. 104
(2008) 1e5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2942408.
[19] K. Walzer, B. Maennig, M. Pfeiffer, K. Leo, Highly efficient organic devices
based on electrically doped transport layers, Chem. Rev. 107 (2007)
1233e1271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr050156n.
[20] D.S. Setz, T.D. Schmidt, M. Fl€ ammich, S. Nowy, J. Frischeisen, B.C. Krummacher,
 D. Riedel et al. / Organic Electronics 32 (2016) 27e33 33

et al., Comprehensive efficiency analysis of organic light-emitting devices,
J. Photonics Energy 1 (2011) 011006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.3528274.
[21] N.C. Giebink, S.R. Forrest, Quantum efficiency roll-off at high brightness in
fluorescent and phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes, Phys. Rev. B
Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 77 (2008) 1e9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevB.77.235215.
[22] S. Reineke, K. Walzer, K. Leo, Triplet-exciton quenching in organic
phosphorescent light-emitting diodes with Ir-based emitters, Phys. Rev. B
Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 75 (2007) 125328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevB.75.125328.
[23] J.J. Shiang, Application of radiative transport theory to light extraction from
organic light emitting diodes, J. Appl. Phys. 95 (2004) 2880, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1063/1.1644037.