Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 75 references

Physical aging of glasses of an organic semiconductor

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Vapor-deposited semiconductor glass ages 10x slower than liquid-cooled

desk verdict Solid experimental study quantifying physical aging in organic semiconductor glasses; PVD aging suppression is the headline result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08653 v1 pith:VVIZE2LG submitted 2026-07-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shinian Cheng , Kritika Jha , Zijian Wang , Juliana B. Lugo , Hayley Kositzke , John H. Perepezko , Zahra Fakhraai , Mark D. Ediger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords physicalagingorganicsemiconductorglassvapordepositionfictivetemperaturevolumerecoveryenthalpyTPD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes three connected facts about physical aging in glasses of the organic semiconductor TPD. First, for liquid-cooled glasses, volume recovery kinetics are essentially identical in 400 nm and 100 nm films, meaning film thickness does not alter aging behavior in this range. Second, the volume recovery measured in thin films and the enthalpy recovery measured in bulk samples follow the same kinetics when compared on a normalized scale, suggesting that the two thermodynamic quantities are coupled during aging and that bulk calorimetry can predict thin-film aging. Third, and most strikingly, glasses prepared by physical vapor deposition at room temperature resist physical aging almost entirely: their aging rate is roughly ten times lower than that of liquid-cooled glasses, and in some cases the film actually expands slightly during annealing because it starts denser than the equilibrium liquid state. The central object carrying the argument is the fictive temperature Tf, a single number that characterizes how far a glass sits from its equilibrium state; the authors track Tf over time using ellipsometry on thin films and calorimetry on bulk samples, then compare the trajectories.

What carries the argument

The argument relies on three experimental techniques spectroscopic ellipsometry to measure film thickness changes in thin films, conventional differential scanning calorimetry to measure enthalpy changes in bulk samples, and flash differential scanning calorimetry to measure enthalpy changes in rapidly quenched bulk samples. The unifying analytical tool is the fictive temperature Tf, defined as the temperature at which the extrapolated equilibrium liquid would have the same volume or enthalpy as the glass. By tracking Tf over aging time, the authors compare aging across different sample geometries and measurement modalities on a common scale. They also use a volume recovery rate beta, drawn从

What would settle it

If the volume recovery kinetics of vapor-deposited TPD films were measured at aging temperatures well below Tg and found to accelerate to match liquid-cooled rates, the claim of exceptional aging resistance would be limited to a narrow temperature range rather than being a general property of the vapor-deposited glass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that the method of preparing an organic semiconductor glass changes its aging behavior by an order of magnitude. Vapor-deposited TPD films, which start in a denser, lower-energy state than liquid-cooled glasses, show an aging rate close to zero, while liquid-cooled films of the same material age readily. This resistance to aging is observed directly through thickness measurements and quantified through the fictive temperature, which barely moves over eight hours of annealing for the vapor-deposited glass but drops substantially for the liquid-cooled glass under the same conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that bulk enthalpy recovery can quantitatively predict thin-film volume recovery relies on the assumption that a normalized fictive temperature tracks both quantities equivalently, which is demonstrated near the glass transition temperature but is not tested at lower temperatures where the glass does not reach equilibrium within the experimental window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organic electronic devices manufactured by physical vapor deposition should maintain their dimensional and energetic stability far longer than solution-processed equivalents, which age more like liquid-cooled glasses.
  • Bulk DSC measurements, available in many laboratories, could serve as a practical screening tool to predict how thin-film organic semiconductor layers will age in devices, avoiding the need for specialized thin-film ellipsometry.
  • Depositing organic semiconductor glasses at substrate temperatures around 0.85 Tg, rather than room temperature, could further suppress aging beyond the tenfold improvement already observed.
  • The coupling of volume and enthalpy recovery in this system suggests that a single structural relaxation mechanism governs both quantities, at least near the glass transition temperature.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the volume-enthalpy coupling holds for other organic semiconductors, it would simplify device lifetime modeling considerably, since enthalpy recovery is far easier to measure in bulk than volume recovery is in nanometer-scale films.
  • The slight expansion observed in vapor-deposited TPD during annealing implies that these glasses are already past the equilibrium density at the aging temperature, raising the question of whether there exists an optimal deposition protocol that places the glass exactly at equilibrium, yielding zero net aging.
  • The fact that 100 nm and 400 nm films age identically while having slightly different thermal expansion coefficients suggests that the aging mechanism is insensitive to the free-surface-to-bulk ratio in this thickness range, which constrains theories that attribute size-dependent aging primarily to surface or interface effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates physical aging (volume and enthalpy recovery) in N,N'-Bis(3-methylphenyl)-N,N'-diphenylbenzidine (TPD), a model organic semiconductor glass. Using spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE) on thin films (100–400 nm) and both conventional and flash differential scanning calorimetry (DSC/FDSC) on bulk samples, the authors establish three main findings: (1) volume recovery kinetics are essentially thickness-independent between 100 and 400 nm for liquid-cooled films; (2) volume recovery in thin films is strongly coupled to enthalpy recovery in bulk glasses when annealed near Tg; and (3) vapor-deposited (PVD) TPD films at room temperature exhibit an aging rate roughly one order of magnitude lower than liquid-cooled counterparts. The experimental methodology is sound, with multiple samples per condition, consistent thermal protocols, and standard fictive-temperature analysis. The claims are appropriately scoped and supported by the data presented.

Significance. The work addresses a practically important and understudied problem: physical aging of organic semiconductor glasses in the thin-film geometries used in OLED devices. The key practical insight—that bulk DSC measurements can quantitatively predict thin-film aging behavior near Tg—is valuable for the community, as DSC is far more accessible than in-situ ellipsometry. The direct quantification of aging-rate suppression in PVD glasses (Fig. 3c–d, Fig. 4) is, to my knowledge, the first such measurement for vapor-deposited organic semiconductor films and provides a concrete, falsifiable benchmark. The comparison to polystyrene aging rates (Fig. 4) contextualizes the results within the broader glass-aging literature. The study is well-designed, with complementary techniques (SE, DSC, FDSC) and appropriate reproducibility checks (≥3 samples per condition).

minor comments (8)
  1. Fig. 6 caption: 'the dashed organic line' appears to be a typo—likely 'the dashed horizontal line' or similar. Please correct.
  2. Fig. 4: The y-axis label and units for the physical aging rate β (Eq. 2) should be stated explicitly in the figure caption; currently the reader must infer the units from the text. Adding them to the axis label would improve clarity.
  3. Fig. 6: The bottom panels (c, d) show teq values, but the caption does not explain how teq was operationally defined (e.g., the criterion for reaching φ = 1). A brief statement in the caption or methods would help reproducibility.
  4. Section on PVD aging (Fig. 3): The text notes a slight thickness increase (~0.05%) for the PVD film during aging (Fig. S8), consistent with the PVD glass starting above equilibrium density. It would strengthen the manuscript to show this data in the main text (Fig. 3d inset or a supplementary panel referenced in the main figure) rather than only in SI, as it directly supports the negative β value discussed in Fig. 4.
  5. The TNM model analysis by Málek and Svoboda (ref. 22) is mentioned in passing. The authors note that those authors found a narrower distribution of relaxation times for PVD glasses. It would be useful to briefly state whether the present data are consistent with that conclusion, even if a full TNM fit is beyond the scope.
  6. Page 17, paragraph discussing OLED device relevance: the sentence beginning 'While many of the layers in actual OLEDs are mixtures...' is somewhat speculative. Consider softening 'suggests that the physical aging for vapor-deposited TPD glasses reported here may be indicative' to acknowledge the extrapolation more explicitly.
  7. Eq. 1: The parameter w is described as 'the width of the glass transition' but the units are not stated. Please add units for completeness.
  8. Fig. 2: The caption states 'the room temperature thicknesses of the films range from 390 nm to 410 nm'—it would help to clarify whether different films were used for different aging temperatures or whether the same film was reused, as this affects the interpretation of inter-temperature comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; all claims rest on independent experimental measurements with standard analytical definitions

full rationale

This is an experimental paper with no theoretical derivation chain that could be circular. The three main claims are each supported by direct, independent measurements: (1) thickness-independent aging is established by comparing SE-measured Tf evolution for 100 nm vs 400 nm films using the same protocol; (2) PVD aging suppression is a within-experiment comparison (Fig. 3c-d) of vapor-deposited vs liquid-cooled films measured identically by SE; (3) volume-enthalpy coupling is an empirical observation comparing φ = (Tf0−Tf)/(Tf0−Tf∞) across SE, DSC, and FDSC, where Tf is independently determined from thickness data (SE) or heat capacity data (DSC/FDSC) using standard glass-science definitions. The analytical tools—fictive temperature Tf, aging rate β = −d(h/h0)/d(log taging), and normalized recovery φ—are standard definitions from the glass literature applied to measured data, not fitted parameters repackaged as predictions. Eq. 1 (Dalnoki-Veress model, ref. 45) is an external empirical model used to extract expansion coefficients; these coefficients then enter Tf calculations, but this is standard parameter extraction, not circular reasoning. Self-citations to co-author prior work (Dalal et al. ref. 36, Zhang & Fakhraai refs. 23/46) provide context and comparison points but are not load-bearing for the present results, which are independently measured. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks (polystyrene data from ref. 27, TPD literature values from ref. 46).

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The analysis uses standard glass physics frameworks (fictive temperature, Tool-Narayanaswamy-Moynihan model) and established experimental techniques. Free parameters are standard fitting constants for optical and thermal models, not theoretical constructs.

free parameters (3)
  • Cauchy model parameters A, B, C = Fitted per film; representative values in SI Figs. S2-S5
    Standard optical model parameters for determining film thickness from ellipsometry data; not load-bearing for the aging conclusions but necessary for measurement.
  • Thermal expansion coefficients M, G (Eq. 1) = M = 6.8e-4 to 7.4e-4 K^-1; G = 2.0e-4 to 2.5e-4 K^-1
    Fitted from cooling curves to determine Tg and expansion coefficients used in Tf calculation; standard approach from Dalnoki-Veress et al.
  • Glass transition width w and offset c (Eq. 1) = Not explicitly reported
    Parameters in the Dalnoki-Veress fitting equation; used to smooth the Tg region but values not individually reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Fictive temperature Tf is a valid scalar descriptor of the thermodynamic state of a glass, such that equality of Tf implies equivalence of structural state.
    Used throughout to compare volume recovery (from SE) and enthalpy recovery (from DSC/FDSC). The Tool-Narayanaswamy-Moynihan framework assumes Tf captures the relevant state variable. Invoked in the normalized comparison of Fig. 6.
  • domain assumption Volume recovery and enthalpy recovery probe the same underlying structural relaxation process, so their kinetics can be directly compared via normalized Tf.
    The paper notes (citing refs. 15, 24, 25) that there is no generic relationship between volume and enthalpy recovery kinetics. The strong coupling observed in TPD is presented as a finding, but the comparison via normalized φ assumes this is meaningful.
  • domain assumption PVD glass stability is independent of substrate material (silicon vs. organic layers used in OLEDs).
    Invoked when generalizing from Si-substrate experiments to OLED device relevance; supported by ref. 55 (Kearns et al. 2007) but stated as an assumption for the present system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical aging of glasses of an organic semiconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVIZE2LG

@misc{pith2026260708653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical aging of glasses of an organic semiconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVIZE2LG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08653}
}
read the original abstract

All glasses, including organic semiconductor glasses, are non-equilibrium materials whose properties will change with time. This physical aging process is poorly understood for organic semiconductors, hindering the rational design of highly durable devices. In this study, we investigated the volume and enthalpy recovery processes in both thin films and bulk glasses of N,N'-Bis(3-methylphenyl)-N,N'-diphenylbenzidine (TPD). Our results revealed that volume recovery kinetics exhibit negligible dependence on film thickness for liquid-cooled TPD films between 400 nm and 100 nm. Additionally, the volume recovery process in TPD films was strongly coupled to the enthalpy recovery observed in bulk TPD glasses during annealing near the glass transition temperature. Remarkably, TPD films prepared by physical vapor deposition at room temperature demonstrated exceptional resistance to physical aging, with an aging rate approximately one order of magnitude lower than that of their liquid-cooled counterparts. These results not only enhance our understanding of the non-equilibrium dynamics in amorphous systems but also offer valuable insights for the design of next-generation organic devices with significantly improved stability and durability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08653 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of physical aging for vapor-deposited and liquid-cooled glasses of TPD. a) The temperature profile used to compare aging in vapor-deposited and liquid-cooled glasses; b) Thickness as a function of temperature for vapor-deposited and liquid-cooled TPD glasses; c) The evolution of Tf with aging time at Taging=318 K for vapor￾deposited (blue) and liquid-cooled (pink) TPD glasses. The gray dashed line shows t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The physical aging rate of liquid-cooled (pink) and vapor-deposited (blue) TPD glasses is plotted as a function of Taging/Tg and compared to data for polystyrene films, taken from ref.27. The dashed lines are guides for the eyes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of physical aging for liquid-cooled TPD glasses as observed by DSC and FDSC (bulk samples) and SE (400 nm films). In each panel, the y axis is the normalized recovery (of volume or enthalpy), such that φ=1 (the dashed organic line) represents the equilibrium…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. Dey, A. Singh, D. Das and P. K. Iyer, Organic semiconductors: a new future of nanodevices and applications, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    F. Li, J. Zhou, J. Zhang and J. Zhao, Materials, 2024, 17, 3362

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Y. Wang, Y. Wen, X. Zhuang, S. Liu, L. Zhang and W. Xie, APL Photonics, 2024, 9, 090901

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Ahmad, J

    S. Ahmad, J. Polym. Eng., 2014, 34, 279-338

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Yoshida, J

    K. Yoshida, J. Gong, A. L. Kanibolotsky, P. J. Skabara, G. A. Turnbull and I. D. Samuel, Nature, 2023, 621, 746-752

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Zhou, H.-Y

    L. Zhou, H.-Y. Xiang, S. Shen, Y.-Q. Li, J.-D. Chen, H.-J. Xie, I. A. Goldthorpe, L.-S. Chen, S.- T. Lee and J.-X. Tang, ACS nano, 2014, 8, 12796-12805

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    D. Yin, J. Feng, R. Ma, Y.-F. Liu, Y.-L. Zhang, X.-L. Zhang, Y.-G. Bi, Q.-D. Chen and H.-B. Sun, Nat. Commun., 2016, 7, 11573

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Micoulaut, Rep

    M. Micoulaut, Rep. Prog. Phys., 2016, 79, 066504

    work page 2016

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    l. M. Hodge, Science, 1995, 267, 1945-1947

    1995

  2. [10]

    J. M. HUTCHINSON, Prog. Polym. Sci., 1995, 20, 703-760

    1995

  3. [11]

    Y. Z. Y. S. L. J. J. d. Christiansen, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2002, 81, 2983–2985

    2002

  4. [12]

    Hecksher, N

    T. Hecksher, N. B. Olsen, K. Niss and J. C. Dyre, J. Chem. Phys., 2010, 133, 174514

    2010

  5. [13]

    B. Ruta, E. Pineda and Z. Evenson, J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 2017, 29, 503002

    2017

  6. [14]

    G. B. McKenna, Y. Leterrier and C. R. Schultheisz, Polym. Eng. Sci., 1995, 35, 403-410

    1995

  7. [15]

    S. L. Simon, D. J. Plazek, J. W. Sobieski and E. T. McGregor, J. Polym. Sci., Part B:Polym. Phys., 1997, 35, 929-936

    1997

  8. [16]

    P. Pan, B. Zhu and Y. Inoue, Macromolecules, 2007, 40, 9664-9671

    2007

  9. [17]

    J. M. Cowie and R. Ferguson, Macromolecules, 1989, 22, 2307-2312

    1989

  10. [18]

    V. A. Soloukhin, J. C. Brokken-Zijp, O. L. van Asselen and G. de With, Macromolecules, 2003, 36, 7585-7597

    2003

  11. [19]

    C. T. Powell, H. Xi, Y. Sun, E. Gunn, Y. Chen, M. Ediger and L. Yu, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2015, 119, 10124-10130

    2015

  12. [20]

    Smith, P

    P. Smith, P. Gerroir, S. Xie, A. Hor, Z. Popovic and M. Hair, Langmuir, 1998, 14, 5946-5950. 21

    1998

  13. [21]

    Azrain, M

    M. Azrain, M. Mansor, S. Fadzullah, G. Omar, D. Sivakumar, L. Lim and M. Nordin, Synth. Met., 2018, 235, 160-175

    2018

  14. [22]

    Málek and R

    J. Málek and R. Svoboda, J. Chem. Phys., 2024, 161, 074507

    2024

  15. [23]

    Zhang and Z

    Y. Zhang and Z. Fakhraai, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2017, 118, 066101

    2017

  16. [24]

    Hecksher, N

    T. Hecksher, N. B. Olsen and J. C. Dyre, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2019, 116, 16736- 16741

    2019

  17. [25]

    E. F. Oleinik, Polym. J., 1987, 19, 105-117

    1987

  18. [26]

    Arabeche, L

    K. Arabeche, L. Delbreilh and E. Baer, J. Polym. Res., 2021, 28, 431

    2021

  19. [27]

    J. E. Pye, K. A. Rohald, E. A. Baker and C. B. Roth, Macromolecules, 2010, 43, 8296-8303

    2010

  20. [28]

    Cangialosi, J

    D. Cangialosi, J. Polym. Sci., 2024, 1952-1974

    2024

  21. [29]

    D. M. Walters, R. Richert and M. D. Ediger, J. Chem. Phys., 2015, 142, 134504

    2015

  22. [30]

    S. S. Dalal and M. D. Ediger, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2012, 3, 1229-1233

    2012

  23. [31]

    S. S. Dalal, Z. Fakhraai and M. D. Ediger, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2013, 117, 15415-15425

    2013

  24. [32]

    Leon-Gutierrez, A

    E. Leon-Gutierrez, A. Sepúlveda, G. Garcia, M. T. Clavaguera-Mora and J. Rodríguez-Viejo, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010, 12, 14693-14698

    2010

  25. [33]

    S. L. L. Ramos, M. Oguni, K. Ishii and H. Nakayama, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2011, 115, 14327- 14332

    2011

  26. [34]

    S. F. Swallen, K. L. Kearns, M. K. Mapes, Y. S. Kim, R. J. McMahon, M. D. Ediger, T. Wu, L. Yu and S. Satija, Science, 2007, 315, 353-356

    2007

  27. [35]

    K. L. Kearns, P. Krzyskowski and Z. Devereaux, J. Chem. Phys., 2017, 146, 203328

    2017

  28. [36]

    S. S. Dalal, D. M. Walters, I. Lyubimov, J. J. de Pablo and M. D. Ediger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2015, 112, 4227-4232

    2015

  29. [37]

    Bagchi, M

    K. Bagchi, M. E. Fiori, C. Bishop, M. Toney and M. Ediger, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2020, 125, 461- 466

    2020

  30. [38]

    Rodriguez-Tinoco, M

    C. Rodriguez-Tinoco, M. Gonzalez-Silveira, M. A. Ramos and J. Rodriguez-Viejo, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 2022, 45, 325-406

    2022

  31. [39]

    Luo and Z

    P. Luo and Z. Fakhraai, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 2023, 74, 361-389

    2023

  32. [40]

    H. Mu, W. Li, R. Jones, A. Steckl and D. Klotzkin, J. Lumin., 2007, 126, 225-229

    2007

  33. [41]

    S. S. Swayamprabha, M. R. Nagar, R. A. K. Yadav, S. Gull, D. K. Dubey and J.-H. Jou, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2019, 7, 7144-7158

    2019

  34. [42]

    P. Luo, S. E. Wolf, S. Govind, R. B. Stephens, D. H. Kim, C. Y. Chen, T. Nguyen, P. Wąsik, M. Zhernenkov and B. Mcclimon, Nat. Mater., 2024, 23, 688-694

    2024

  35. [43]

    Y. Jin, A. Zhang, S. E. Wolf, S. Govind, A. R. Moore, M. Zhernenkov, G. Freychet, A. Arabi Shamsabadi and Z. Fakhraai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2021, 118, e2100738118

    2021

  36. [44]

    E. A. Baker, P. Rittigstein, J. M. Torkelson and C. B. Roth, J. Polym. Sci., Part B:Polym. Phys., 2009, 47, 2509-2519

    2009

  37. [45]

    Dalnoki-Veress, J

    K. Dalnoki-Veress, J. Forrest, C. Murray, C. Gigault and J. Dutcher, Phys. Rev. E, 2001, 63, 031801

    2001

  38. [46]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. N. Woods, M. Alvarez, Y. Jin, R. A. Riggleman and Z. Fakhraai, J. Chem. Phys., 2018, 149, 184902

    2018

  39. [47]

    V. M. Boucher, C. Daniele, A. a. Angel and C. Juan, Macromolecules, 2012, 45, 5296-5306

    2012

  40. [48]

    Moratalla, M

    M. Moratalla, M. Rodríguez-López, C. Rodríguez-Tinoco, J. Rodríguez-Viejo, R. J. Jiménez- Riobóo and M. A. Ramos, Commun. Phys., 2023, 6, 274

    2023

  41. [49]

    Shibata, Y

    M. Shibata, Y. Sakai and D. Yokoyama, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2015, 3, 11178-11191

    2015

  42. [50]

    Di Lisio, V.-M

    V. Di Lisio, V.-M. Stavropoulou and D. Cangialosi, J. Chem. Phys., 2023, 159, 064505

    2023

  43. [51]

    Y. P. Koh, S. Gao and S. L. Simon, Polymer, 2016, 96, 182-187

    2016

  44. [52]

    J. Q. Wang, Y. Shen, J. H. Perepezko and M. D. Ediger, Acta Mater, 2016, 104, 25-32

    2016

  45. [53]

    M. D. Ediger, C. A. Angell and S. R. Nagel, J. Phys. Chem., 1996, 100, 13200-13212. 22

    1996

  46. [54]

    Ràfols-Ribé, P.-A

    J. Ràfols-Ribé, P.-A. Will, C. Hänisch, M. Gonzalez-Silveira, S. Lenk, J. Rodríguez-Viejo and S. Reineke, Sci. Adv., 2018, 4, eaar8332

    2018

  47. [55]

    K. L. Kearns, S. F. Swallen, M. Ediger, T. Wu and L. Yu, J. Chem. Phys., 2007, 127, 154702

    2007

  48. [56]

    M. E. Fiori, K. Bagchi, M. F. Toney and M. D. Ediger, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2021, 118, e2111988118

    2021

  49. [57]

    Y. Lee, S. Cheng and M. Ediger, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2024, 15, 8085-8092

    2024

  50. [58]

    Cheng, Y

    S. Cheng, Y. Lee, J. Yu, L. Yu and M. D. Ediger, Chem. Mater., 2024, 36, 3205-3214

    2024

  51. [59]

    Cheng, Y

    S. Cheng, Y. Lee, J. Yu, L. Yu and M. D. Ediger, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2023, 14, 4297-4303. 1 Supporting information for Physical aging of glasses of an organic semiconductor Shinian Cheng1*, Kritika Jha2, Zijian Wang3, Juliana B. Lugo2, Hayley Kositzke1, John Perepezko3, Zahr...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Temperature profiles for aging experiments

  53. [61]

    Representative fitting parameters of the isotropic Cauchy model for the liquid-cooled TPD film

  54. [62]

    Representative fitting parameters of the anisotropic Cauchy model for vapor-deposited TPD film

  55. [63]

    Refractive index for TPD films in glassy and supercooled liquid states

  56. [64]

    Determination of Tf of TPD films from SE measurements

  57. [65]

    Physical aging rate of liquid-cooled TPD films

  58. [66]

    DSC and FDSC thermograms of bulk TPD glasses

  59. [67]

    Examples for determining Tf of bulk TPD glasses from DSC and FDSC measurements 2

  60. [68]

    S1: The temperature profiles of aging experiments on liquid-cooled TPD glasses for a) SE, b) DSC, and c) FDSC measurements

    Temperature profiles for aging experiments Fig. S1: The temperature profiles of aging experiments on liquid-cooled TPD glasses for a) SE, b) DSC, and c) FDSC measurements. 3

  61. [69]

    S2: Representative isotropic Cauchy model parameters for a 400 nm liquid-cooled TPD film as a function of aging time at Taging=318K

    Representative fitting parameters of the isotropic Cauchy model for the liquid-cooled TPD film Fig. S2: Representative isotropic Cauchy model parameters for a 400 nm liquid-cooled TPD film as a function of aging time at Taging=318K. d) The obtained Mean Squared Error (MSE) bet...

  62. [70]

    S4: Representative anisotropic Cauchy model parameters for a 400 nm vapor-deposited TPD film as a function of aging time at Taging=318K

    Representative fitting parameters of the anisotropic Cauchy model for vapor-deposited TPD film Fig. S4: Representative anisotropic Cauchy model parameters for a 400 nm vapor-deposited TPD film as a function of aging time at Taging=318K. d) The obtained Mean Squared Error (MSE)...

  63. [71]

    S 6: The refractive index n at 632.8 nm as a function of temperature during an aging experiment at Taging=318K for a) 400 nm and b) 100 nm TPD glasses and supercooled liquid

    Refractive index for TPD films in glassy and supercooled liquid states Fig. S 6: The refractive index n at 632.8 nm as a function of temperature during an aging experiment at Taging=318K for a) 400 nm and b) 100 nm TPD glasses and supercooled liquid

  64. [72]

    S 7: Illustration of the method used to calculate Tf of aged TPD glasses at a given aging temperature Taging

    Determination of Tf of TPD films from SE measurements Fig. S 7: Illustration of the method used to calculate Tf of aged TPD glasses at a given aging temperature Taging. The blue dot represents the glass film thickness at Taging after aging for taging. The dashed blue line indi...

  65. [73]

    S9: a) Normalized thickness is plotted as a function of log(taging) of liquid-cooled TPD films at various aging temperatures

    Physical aging rate of liquid-cooled TPD films Fig. S9: a) Normalized thickness is plotted as a function of log(taging) of liquid-cooled TPD films at various aging temperatures. h0 is the film thickness at taging=0 s; b) Illustration of the linear fits (dashed lines) to obtain...

  66. [74]

    S10: DSC thermograms of bulk TPD glasses after aging at 333 K, 331K, 328K, 327K, and 320K, for the indicated aging times

    DSC and FDSC thermograms of bulk TPD glasses Fig. S10: DSC thermograms of bulk TPD glasses after aging at 333 K, 331K, 328K, 327K, and 320K, for the indicated aging times. Fig. S11: FDSC thermograms of bulk TPD glasses after aging at 320 K, 327K, 329K, 331K, and 333K for the i...

  67. [75]

    S12: Enthalpy as a function of temperature for bulk TPD glasses aged at 310K for various aging times

    Examples for determining Tf of bulk TPD glasses from DSC and FDSC measurements Fig. S12: Enthalpy as a function of temperature for bulk TPD glasses aged at 310K for various aging times. The dashed lines present the extrapolated enthalpy of supercooled liquid of TPD using a sec...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.