Measurement of absolute photoluminescence quantum yields using integrating spheres - Which way to go?

• Published in: Laser & photonics reviews Vol. 6; no. 6; pp. 802 - 806
• Main Authors: Faulkner, D.O., McDowell, J.J., Price, A.J., Perovic, D.D., Kherani, N.P., Ozin, G.A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin WILEY-VCH Verlag 01-11-2012; WILEY‐VCH Verlag; Wiley-VCH; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Atomic and molecular physics; Conjugated polymers; Exact sciences and technology; Fluorescence and phosphorescence; radiationless transitions, quenching (intersystem crossing, internal conversion); Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications); luminescence; Molecular properties and interactions with photons; Optical materials; Optics; photoluminescence; Physics; Polymers and organics; thin films; Thin films; Time dependence; Conjugated polymer; Conjugated polymers; luminescence; Organic dye; Photoluminescence; Measuring methods; Optical materials; Integrating sphere; Quantum yield; Photooxidation
• ISSN: 1863-8880; 1863-8899
• DOI: 10.1002/lpor.201200077

Two common methods for recording absolute photoluminescence quantum yields using integrating spheres are discussed. These methods are developed from a theoretical standpoint, with a discussion of the assumptions made in each and their principle differences, and practical comparisons between the two are made using a range of different materials and sample types. It is shown that despite the underlying theoretical differences both methods ultimately yield very similar experimental results. Additionally, the concept of a time‐dependent quantum yield is examined and preliminary studies along these lines are presented in the form of an investigation into the photo‐oxidation of a luminescent polymer film.
Two common methods for recording absolute photoluminescence quantum yields using integrating spheres are discussed. These methods are developed from a theoretical standpoint. The assumptions made for each method are discussed, and practical comparisons between the two are made using a range of different materials and sample types. It is shown that despite the underlying theoretical differences both methods ultimately yield very similar experimental results.