I Photoluminescence Excitation (PLE) vs PL spectroscopy

Jalo
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure I understand what information we can get from Photoluminescence Excitation (PLE) that we don't get from regular PL.

Let's imagine we have a sample with emissions between 700nm and 850nm. If I'm not mistaken in a typical PL experiment you'd just use a laser source with a wavelength lower than 700nm in order to observe all the transitions from the material. Would there be a difference between the obtained spectra if I used a 300nm and 600nm laser source wavelength?

Also, on a typical PLE for this same material which wavelengths would be of interest? Would I want to vary the laser source's wavelength between 850nm and 700nm? What information would I be able to extract from the obtained spectra that I wouldn't in typical PL?

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In many cases, the photoluminescence involves an internal energy transition between light absorption and emission events. The emitted photon has then lower energy than the absorbed one. The photoluminescence emission let's you investigate the higher energy state of this process.

The excitation energy has to match an absorption band to a state that internally decays to the luminescence emission band. If your emission is in 700 to 850 nm, and you use 300 or 600 nm, you may or may not observe luminescence.
 
Henryk said:
The excitation energy has to match an absorption band to a state that internally decays to the luminescence emission band. If your emission is in 700 to 850 nm, and you use 300 or 600 nm, you may or may not observe luminescence.

If I'm exciting on a wavelength lower than where my emission is shouldn't I always obtain luminescence, with the extra energy from the inciding photons leading to non radiative relaxation of the electrons until they match an energy equal to radiative transitions of the material?
 
Jalo said:
If I'm exciting on a wavelength lower than where my emission is shouldn't I always obtain luminescence
Not always. You need to absorb light first and that requires that the photon energy matches energy from the ground state (plus possible vibrational/rotational) energy to a higher energy first. If the incident photon energy does not match an absorption band of the substance, it won't get absorbed. The PLE is the technique that let's you scan the excitation energy (wavelength). I've done these kind of measurements myself and there is a definite PLE spectrum.
 
Henryk said:
Not always. You need to absorb light first and that requires that the photon energy matches energy from the ground state (plus possible vibrational/rotational) energy to a higher energy first. If the incident photon energy does not match an absorption band of the substance, it won't get absorbed. The PLE is the technique that let's you scan the excitation energy (wavelength). I've done these kind of measurements myself and there is a definite PLE spectrum.
What I don't understand is how is it different to excite the sample with a 300nm photon vs a 600nm photon for a material whose main transitions take place at for example 800nm, since both have a higher energy than the main transition that takes place in the sample. Shouldn't both photons be absorbed by the material and then relaxe through non radiative paths until they reach the main transition level, and from there decay to the ground state?

I ran a PLE experiment recently as well for a sample with emission around 800nm and while the PL spectrum shape didn't change throughout the experiment it was more intense for some wavelengths than others (with a peak at 760nm for some reason)
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top