April 25, 2024, 04:23:37 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Ultraviolet Fluorescence?  (Read 3753 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Enthalpy

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4041
  • Mole Snacks: +304/-59
Ultraviolet Fluorescence?
« on: August 23, 2015, 05:09:28 PM »
Hello dear all!

As strong (N*kW), efficient (40% power) and durable (few years) sources of ultraviolet light, we have
  • Xe2 at 172nm;
  • KrCl at 222nm;
  • lp-Hg at 254nm;
  • mp-Hg at 365, 385, 395nm - and LED at individual wavelengths, so that portion is solved.
and the others are less good presently, like 15% efficient for the best ones among the second line. Though, I believe photosyntheses will become increasingly important in a near future, and they need a finer choice than that.

Hence my question:

Do you see a means to convert efficiently the good primary wavelengths to other ones? Say,
  • 172 -> 190 or 200nm
  • 222 -> 240nm
  • 254 -> 280, 300, 320, 340nm

The global power efficiency shall improve versus 15%, so starting from 40% at the pumping wavelength and losing 18% photon energy, the quantum efficiency must exceed 44%.

The pumping power is several kW on 0.2m2. Cooling doesn't look very difficult. The same lifespan as the pumping lamp would be nice.

I don't care that little bit whether it's organic - mineral, gaseous - liquid - solid - anything, colour centres in a crystal, a semiconductor, nanodots...

Any ideas? Or at least signs of hope?

Thank you!

Offline Corribus

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3483
  • Mole Snacks: +530/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • A lover of spectroscopy and chocolate.
Re: Ultraviolet Fluorescence?
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2015, 12:00:58 PM »
What exactly do you mean by "convert"?
What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?  - Richard P. Feynman

Offline Enthalpy

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4041
  • Mole Snacks: +304/-59
Re: Ultraviolet Fluorescence?
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2015, 05:45:33 AM »
As I imagine it, absorb light at 172nm from an efficient Xe2 lamp, and emit light at 200nm by fluorescence, with >44% quantum efficiency. Or absorb at 222nm and emit at 240nm.

Unless there is a better process than fluorescence.

Offline Enthalpy

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4041
  • Mole Snacks: +304/-59
Re: Ultraviolet Fluorescence?
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2015, 06:01:46 AM »
What I've found on the Web up to now is mainly aromatic aminated acids, often natural ones, excited by the historic lp-Hg lamp at 254nm. While tyrosine and tryptophane emit at useful 303nm and 348nm, their QE is only 20%.

Though, natural compounds are not needed. Any adaptation or design that adjusts the wavelength and improves the efficiently would be useful.

Sodium 1-dimethylaminonaphthalene-7-sulphonate offers QE=75%,
sodium 1-dimethylaminonaphthalene-5-sulphonate QE=53%,
but at what wavelength?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199900/pdf/biochemj00847-0064.pdf

Pyrene offers QE=69% but at 370-400nm where LED are already better
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/cs/c3cs60352k
Benzene, Naphtalene, Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Benzopyrene are inefficient. Would a modification improve them?

Offline Corribus

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3483
  • Mole Snacks: +530/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • A lover of spectroscopy and chocolate.
Re: Ultraviolet Fluorescence?
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2015, 11:00:02 AM »
Enthalpy,
There are a number of reasons there aren't many strong UV-emitting (organic) fluorophores.  I could elaborate at length, but generally the fluorescence efficiency is related to the ratio of the radiative rate of excited state deactivation to the sum of the radiative and nonradiative rates,

[tex]\phi_f = \frac {k_r}{k_r + k_{nr}}[/tex]

Not surprisingly, fluorohpores with high efficiency are those in which the radiative rate far exceeds the nonradiative rate. As the emission wavelength shifts to the red, knr gets very large due to efficient coupling of vibronic states along the ground and excited electronic surfaces, hence why there are very few good NIR-emitting fluorophores. (See: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=81175.msg296146#msg296146) kr is a bit more difficult to model, but in the atomic limit, the (spontaneous) radiative rate is essentially related to the Einstein A coefficient, which has a linear dependency on the Einstein B coefficient, which is basically an absorption rate. Molecules absorbing in the UV tend to have lower absorption cross-sections than those in the visible, for a variety of reasons, such that the radiative rate tends to be relatively small at very high absorption energies. (The Einstein coefficients are applicable to very simple atomic systems. Strickler and Berg published a landmark modification applicable to molecules in the 1960s, a good paper for you to read if you're interested in this kind of thing. But, the basic principle of the Einstein coefficient holds.) The end result is that for many related systems, fluorescence yields tend to be highest in the visible range, and lower especially as you get into the UV and NIR regions. For instance, if you plot out the fluorescence yields of many conjugated oligomers as a function of their emission wavelength, you get an inverted U shape. An example can be found in one of my own papers, figure attached below. This is for oxidized MEH-PPV polymers. As you move toward monomeric systems, the triplet yield - essentially a form of nonradiative deactivation - also often becomes competitive with fluorescence.

So, basically - things like benzene, or even ethene or acetylene - while having absorption and fluorescence in the UV region, have fairly low fluorescence yields. Benzene is only a few percent, and ethene and acetylene are practically nonfluorescent. As you get to smaller molecule, the high symmetry also causes some problems for you because of the presence of low-lying electron states with extremely low absorptivity. My old book of laser dyes from Kodak lists only one example with an emission wavelength below 400 nm (terphenyl, emission peak at 354 nm in cyclohexane) with a QY of 17% (according to another source). The smaller analogue, biphenyl, has an emission wavelength of 315 nm and a QY of 7%. The extinction coefficient is reasonable at around 18000 M-1 cm-1. But it's just going to get worse as you move deeper into UV region.

There is also the matter of absorption intensity that you'd need to take into account for practical usage. UV-emitting atoms have a very high fluorescence yield (there are few routes for non-radiative relaxation). But excitation efficiency is also very low, so it's difficult to prepare enough excited-state species to make them a practical source of UV fluorescence. (Consider, even if you're fluorescence yield is 100%, if your emitters don't absorb any photons, they can't emit any photons.) Mercury vapor is very bright when a large portion of atoms are excited, but it's not easy or efficient to prepare this body of excited species optically. This is why an electric arc is used (as in a mercury lamp) - much more efficient. Based on your stated application of converting a higher energy fluorescence to a slightly lower one (like a phosphor coating on a UV lamp tube), you'll need to take this into consideration, because your emitter first has to absorb energy to then emit it.

In the end you may be better off with inorganic emitters (semiconductor QDs), which play by different rules, but of course they have their own problems as you move toward the UV end of the spectrum - although I understand UV LEDs are now available even deep into the UV region.

Not an easy problem to solve.  If I could, I'd probably be rich. Strong Far-UV-emitting OLED with tunable emission wavelength would be huge, lot of potential applications. Corribus the billionaire. :)
What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?  - Richard P. Feynman

Offline Enthalpy

  • Chemist
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4041
  • Mole Snacks: +304/-59
Re: Ultraviolet Fluorescence?
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2015, 12:30:33 PM »
Thanks Corribus!

Rich by developing technology yourself, really...? Then a more accessible development could be from 385nm to a nice blue fluorescence. Present white Led emit directly a fraction of the 405nm as the blue component, which is very unpleasant; pumping the three colours from UV would be nicer.

7% and 17%, that's less than I hope... and it's the best figures I found too, mainly in George G. Guibault's "Practical fluorescence" at page 233 of the second edition (Googlebooks). 1,4- substituted benzene gets a better QE:
H and N(CH3)2 => 10% at 365nm
NH2 and F => 12% at 362nm
OH and CH3 => 9% at more useful 313nm

My general (wrong?) impression is that researchers observed up to now, essentially for analysis and detection of natural compounds, and essentially with 254nm excitation, rather than designed compounds that fluoresce in UV. Or has someone already tinkered seriously with aza aromatics, with stuffing with fluorine, and the like? I understand your argument that general trends go against the attempt, but there are always exceptions. Schiff bases, aza- 1,4-cyclohexadiene and barrelene, fluoroopolybutadiene...? Complex a metal ion rather than substitute with fluorine?

In such an attempt, the constraints are relaxed. The fluo thing can be a solid, the solvent chosen if any, cost and toxicity are less critical. If the compound degrades too quickly, it can be renewed continuously as a fluid.

10-17cm2/molec for ethylene at 172nm means that a solid would absorb within 0.1µm thickness, 105 times better than needed, leaving design room. If deformations and interactions (even polymerization!) hamper an alkene's efficiency, maybe the rest of the molecule can help?

Sponsored Links