cintelliq - materials



home \|	newsletter \|	reports \|	consultancy \|	conferences \|	about us \|	resources

materials: where is the value?

Few would disagree that over the next five to ten years the demand for electronic devices, based on organic semiconductor materials, will evolve into a substantial market.

At this point in the evolution of the industry the market for organic semiconductor materials is clearly dominated by the market for OLED based displays.

Already there are many companies and research institutions actively engaged in developing and maturing a range of organic semiconductor technologies for this purpose. Beyond early display devices we can anticipate future applications based on organic semiconductor properties such as electronics, general lighting and photovoltaic systems. As these applications make their transition from research to marketplace they will in turn generate substantial opportunities for device manufacturers to produce a broad range of innovative products.

It is fairly clear to device manufacturers that as the overall industry grows unit volume grows and prices fall, with the underlying expectation that overall revenues will rise rapidly.

However, for materials providers, especially those that supply materials in solution processible form, this may not turn out to be the case - at least not during the early stages of the commercialisation phase of OLED based displays.

The manufacture of OLED based displays requires active semiconducting materials to be deposited as 50 nm —120 nm thick layers. So even large unit shipments of displays will still result in relatively small volumes of materials. By way of comparison an equivalent layer of LCD would be approximately 50-80 times thicker.

Spin-coating is generally accepted as the preferred method to create simple monochrome passive matrix displays. With minor modifications the same semiconducting material can be applied via an ink-jet deposition system to produce either a segmented passive matrix display or an active matrix display. In the latter two devices the active material is deposited in precise quantities to predetermined locations across the substrate and not, as is the case with spin coating, liberally applied to the whole substrate.

Comparison of deposition techniques
Deposition technique:	Spin-coating		Direct printing (eg ink-jetting)
Active layer coverage	100%		40%		80%
Utilisation	5%	10%	30%	70%	30%	70%
Material usage per display area	x 20	x 10	x 1.33	x 0.57	x 2.66	x 1.14
Normalised material usage per display area	17.6	8.8	1.17	0.5	2.33	1.0
Display Architecture	Passive matrix monochrome		Passive matrix segmented/colour		Active matrix full-colour
Unit cost of display (compared to mono passive matrix display)	$		$$		$$$

At present early commercially available polymer-based OLED displays are monochrome passive-matrix. Spin-coating is widely used to deposit the active semiconducting layer. Up to 95% of the material is lost as it is spun off the surface of the substrate.

Over time device manufacturers will migrate to using more efficient deposition techniques such as ink-jetting and other forms of direct printing. These are expected to have much improved efficiencies possibly 30% to 40% and then approaching 70% as the technology matures.

In terms of pricing per unit area, segmented displays command higher prices than monochrome, colour displays command yet more while active-matrix displays generally command the highest prices per unit area.

Over time the demand for semiconducting materials may undergo a significant adjustment as the amount of material placed on the display is also reduced and the transition from inefficient to efficient deposition technologies is completed. The net effect is an overall reduction in volume.

Potentially this may have a big economic consequence to the manufacturer of organic semiconducting materials, especially at the initial stages of industry development.

An initial assessment of the situation might conclude that material manufacturers are faced with a dilemma of how to supply and price materials taking into account wasteful deposition processes like spin-coating which require low cost materials, and at the same time price the same materials for an efficient deposition process such as ink-jet.

However, when exploring possible answers to this dilemma it becomes obvious that it is more than a simple pricing question.

In fact this dilemma could dampen early adoption of solution processing as a viable means for depositing materials due to uncertain pricing strategies. Leaving them unanswered may not be an option.

Questions to consider:

When materials are deposited in ultra-thin layers but the value-added is high who extracts the value?
When volumes are low who bears the cost of establishing the materials manufacturing infrastructure?
When deposition processes become ever more efficient who realises the benefit?
When deposition processes are wasteful who should absorb the cost of the waste — supplier or customer?
Is the industry facing a unique but transient situation, or will it remain?
When the industry matures and the range of active materials broadens will this no longer be an issue?
Will different business models offer a solution?
Will new modes of engagement between suppliers and customers be necessary?
What short-term tactics and long-term strategy should be adopted in supplying materials to the marketplace?