
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>AbstractLanthanide-based photon-cutting phosphors absorb high-energy photons and ‘cut’ them into multiple smaller excitation quanta. These quanta are subsequently emitted, resulting in photon-conversion efficiencies exceeding unity. The photon-cutting process relies on energy transfer between optically active lanthanide ions doped in the phosphor. However, it is not always easy to determine, let alone predict, which energy-transfer mechanisms are operative in a particular phosphor. This makes the identification and design of new promising photon-cutting phosphors difficult. Here we unravel the possibility of using the Tm3+/Yb3+lanthanide couple for photon cutting. We compare the performance of this couple in four different host materials. Cooperative energy transfer from Tm3+to Yb3+would enable blue-to-near-infrared conversion with 200% efficiency. However, we identify phonon-assisted cross-relaxation as the dominant Tm3+-to-Yb3+energy-transfer mechanism in YBO3, YAG, and Y2O3. In NaYF4, in contrast, the low maximum phonon energy renders phonon-assisted cross-relaxation impossible, making the desired cooperative mechanism the dominant energy-transfer pathway. Our work demonstrates that previous claims of high photon-cutting efficiencies obtained with the Tm3+/Yb3+couple must be interpreted with care. Nevertheless, the Tm3+/Yb3+couple is potentially promising, but the host material—more specifically, its maximum phonon energy—has a critical effect on the energy-transfer mechanisms and thereby on the photon-cutting performance.
Article
Article
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 60 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
