Comparative analysis of magnetic resonance in the polaron pair recombination and the triplet exciton-polaron quenching models

Thumbnail Image
Mkhitaryan, Vagharsh
Danilovic, Dusan
Hippola, Chamika
Raikh, M.
Shinar, Joseph
Major Professor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Ames National Laboratory

Ames National Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), operated by and located on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.

For more than 70 years, the Ames National Laboratory has successfully partnered with Iowa State University, and is unique among the 17 DOE laboratories in that it is physically located on the campus of a major research university. Many of the scientists and administrators at the Laboratory also hold faculty positions at the University and the Laboratory has access to both undergraduate and graduate student talent.

Organizational Unit
Physics and Astronomy
Physics and astronomy are basic natural sciences which attempt to describe and provide an understanding of both our world and our universe. Physics serves as the underpinning of many different disciplines including the other natural sciences and technological areas.
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Ames Laboratory

We present a comparative theoretical study of magnetic resonance within the polaron pair recombination (PPR) and the triplet exciton-polaron quenching (TPQ) models. Both models have been invoked to interpret the photoluminescence detected magnetic resonance (PLDMR) results in π -conjugated materials and devices. We show that resonance line shapes calculated within the two models differ dramatically in several regards. First, in the PPR model, the line shape exhibits unusual behavior upon increasing the microwave power: it evolves from fully positive at weak power to fully negative at strong power. In contrast, in the TPQ model, the PLDMR is completely positive, showing a monotonic saturation. Second, the two models predict different dependencies of the resonance signal on the photoexcitation power, P L . At low P L , the resonance amplitude Δ I / I is ∝ P L within the PPR model, while it is ∝ P 2 L crossing over to P 3 L within the TPQ model. On the physical level, the differences stem from different underlying spin dynamics. Most prominently, a negative resonance within the PPR model has its origin in the microwave-induced spin-Dicke effect, leading to the resonant quenching of photoluminescence. The spin-Dicke effect results from the spin-selective recombination, leading to a highly correlated precession of the on-resonance pair partners under the strong microwave power. This effect is not relevant for TPQ mechanism, where the strong zero-field splitting renders the majority of triplets off resonance. On the technical level, the analytical evaluation of the line shapes for the two models is enabled by the fact that these shapes can be expressed via the eigenvalues of a complex Hamiltonian. This bypasses the necessity of solving the much larger complex linear system of the stochastic Liouville equations. Our findings pave the way towards a reliable discrimination between the two mechanisms via cw PLDMR.

Subject Categories