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-Epoxy

Blue 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

mit

tan

ce

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

ran

smit

tan

ce

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

ran

smit

tan

ce

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

ran

smit

tan

ce

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