Damage Threshold Data (Summary)
description
Transcript of Damage Threshold Data (Summary)
Damage Threshold Data(Summary)
Optical Damage Thresholds for Various Samples
Sample Fluence DT (J/cm2)
DNA/CTMA on SLG Substrate 2.3 to 2.6
DNA/CTMA W/O Substrate 2.1 (sample curved)
Fused Silica 2.7 to 4.5 (AFRL = 4.3)
SiC Semi-conducting 0.6
SiC Conducting 0.65
PMMA 380 0.5
PMMA 455 0.6
Optical Damage Threshold Comparable to that of Fused Silica
Thermal Conductivity
[2]
DNA & DNA/CTMA [measured - AFRL]
PMMA [1]
• Large Thermal Conductivity• 0.12 W/mK for PMMA[1] • 0.82 W/mK DNA (~7X > PMMA)• 0.62 W/mK DNA-CTMA (~5X > PMMA)
Potential ForGetting Heat Out
[1] Takashi Kodama, et al., “Heat Conduction through a DNA-Gold Composite,” Nano Letters, 9, 2005 (2009)[2] Hartnett, Cho, Greene and Bar-Cohen, Advances In Heat Transfer, Volume 39, p. 174, Academic Press, 2006
• Ce3+:YAG Phosphor:Merck: Isiphor YGA 588100 (LED phosphor)
• Epoxy:Epoxy Technology: EPO-TEK OG142-112 (LED epoxy)
• DNA-Biopolymer:12 wt% DNA-CTMA-C4H9OH
(500 KDa, soxhlet rinse - no dialysis)
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
Materials
• DNA – Ogata Research Laboratory• CTMA – Sigma Aldrich (25 wt% CTMA in solution)• C4H9OH – Sigma Aldrich
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-Epoxy• 45 µl drop onto nylon cap• UV cure 100 mW for 10 min• bake @ 40oC for 60 min
Processing
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-DNA/CTMA• 45 µl drop onto nylon cap• bake @ 40oC for 60 min
(no UV curing required)
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
Sony 100 CameraSpeed: 1/160 second
Aperture: F5.6
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-DNA/CTMA33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-Epoxy
Characterization
Light Source: Photon Micro Light (λ = 470 nm)
Phosphor + Host
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
IGOR PRO
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-Epoxy33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-DNA/CTMA
iPhotoLux app for Apple iPod Touch
Central Bright Region 6X Larger for DNA-Based Material(6X Brighter ?)
Photon Micro Light(λ = 470 nm)
Sony 100 CameraSpeed: 1/160 second
Aperture: F5.6
J. Grote, “Light emitting diode with a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) biopolymer”, US Patent 8,093,802 B1, Jan. 10, 2012
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-DNA/CTMA33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-Epoxy
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-EpoxyBlue LED
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-DNA/CTMA
More Blue Componentwith Epoxy-Based Host
More Longer Wavelength Componentswith DNA-Based Host
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
Chromaticity (CIE 1931 [x, y] Gamut Chart)
Exact White[0.3127, 0.3290]
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-Epoxy[0.1975, 0.2177]
33 wt% Ce3+:YAG-DNA/CTMA[0.2441, 0.2877]
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
Heat Exposure
Epoxy - 66.11 µm thick (flow coat)DNA/CTMA - 59.33 µm thick (flow coat)
340 390 440 490 540 590 640 690 74020
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
DNA-CTMA
Before 24hr @ 90C
After 24hr @ 90C
2nd 24hr @90C
Wavelength (nm)
% T
rnas
mitt
ance
340 390 440 490 540 590 640 690 74020
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Epoxy
Before 24hr @ 90C
After 24hr @ 90C
2nd 24hr @90C
Wavelength (nm)
% T
rans
mitt
ance
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
24 Hour UV Exposure (λ = 365 nm)
Epoxy - 66.11 µm thick (flow coat)DNA/CTMA - 59.33 µm thick (flow coat)
340 390 440 490 540 590 640 690 74020
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Epoxy
2nd 24hr @90C
Final 1hr UV Cure
Wavelength (nm)
% T
rans
mitt
ance
340 390 440 490 540 590 640 690 74020
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2nd 24hr @ 90C
Final 1hr UV Cure
Wavelength (nm)
% T
rans
mitt
ance
DNA-CTMA
Cost Analysis
Cost Per Gram of Material• DNA/CTMA $6.75• 0.5g DNA + 4 ml CTMA
(25 wt% solution of CTMA in H2O)
• 12 wt% DNA/CTMA in C4H9OH $0.86 (~4X more)• EPO-TEK OG142-112 Epoxy $0.20
DNA Biopolymer-BasedWhite Solid State Lighting
Future DNA materials (estimated 10X-100X cost reduction)• 12 wt% DNA/CTMA in C4H9OH $0.16 (~1.25X less)
$0.06 (~3X less)
Phosphor Coating Accounts for 5% - 10% of Cost of White LED
Deposition TechniquesThat Can Be Used
Spin Deposit
Cast
Flow Coat
Vacuum Deposit
Ink Jet Print
Pulsed Laser
Spray Deposit
Electro-Spin
Enhanced Fluorescence in Electrospun Dye-Doped DNA Nanofibers
Fluorescent Dye Hemi22λex = 460 nm
(Hemi22) 4-[4-dimethylaminostyryl]-1-docosylpyridinium bromide
Y. Ner, et. al., “Enhanced Fluorescence in Electrospun Dye-Doped DNA Nanofibers ", Soft Matter, 4, 1-7, (2008)
Acceptor Dye
DNA-CTMA-Hemi22
Normalized FluorescenceSample IntensityPMMA Film 2.2 x106
PMMA Nanofiber 1.1 x 107
DNA–CTMA Film 3.9 x 107
DNA–CTMA Nanofiber 2.3 x 108
Film
Nanofiber
~10X
Phosphor-DNA/CTMA
Increased Surface Area
Phosphor-DNA/CTMA
Summary & Conclusions(DNA-CTMA Host vs Epoxy)
+ Brighter (Higher Efficiency ?)+ Closer to Exact White Light (More Longer Wavelengths Present)+ Higher UV & Comparable Heat Tolerance (Longer Lifetime ?)+ Lower Optical Loss+ Acceptable Temperature Stability+ Higher Thermal Conductivity+ Higher Optical Damage Threshold+ Higher Photochemical Stability+ Comparable Low Temperature Processing+ No UV Curing Required+ Longer Shelf Life+ Environmentally Friendly− ~4X More Expensive (Currently)
+ Potentially ~1.25X-3X Less Expensive (Future) Cost may not be an issue
Acknowledgments
Edison Materials Technology Center (EMTEC)
Air Force Research LaboratoryMaterials &Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/RX)
Merck (Ce3+:YAG phosphor)
Rajesh Naik (jpeg to gamut chart conversion)
Timothy Gorman (IGOR PRO conversion)
Danny Grote (iPhotoLux conversion)
Elizabeth Steenbergen (spectral data)
ID Cast
Wright Brothers Institute