. 2019 Aug 22;11(9):1379. doi: 10.3390/polym11091379

Table 1.

Optical data of C1b and C2b in solution and as neat and dispersed samples.

Sample	λ_abs.sol (nm) ^a	λ_em.sol (nm) ^b	PLQY% ^c	Solvent	λ_abs.film (nm) ^d	λ_em.film (nm) ^e	PLQY% ^f	Matrix ^f
C1b	369	533	5.00 ± 0.02	Chloroform	(403)474 ^j	613 ^j	25 ± 1 ^j	neat ^j
	373	529		THF	470 ^jj	566 ^jj	30 ± 1 ^jj	PS ^jj
	396	523		NMP	460 ^jjj	566 ^ijjj	88 ± 5 ^jjj	PVK ^jjj
	-	-		-	460 ^jv	571 ^jv	50 ± 5 ^jv	PDLC ^jv
C2b	420	534	3.00 ± 0.02	Chloroform	446 ^j	613 ^j	22 ± 1 ^j	neat ^j
	422	512		THF	429 ^jj	566 ^jj	10 ± 2 ^jj	PS ^jj
	430	511		NMP	429 ^jjj	566 ^ijjj	21 ± 2 ^jjj	PVK ^jjj
	-	-		-	414 ^jv	571 ^jv	41 ± 5 ^jv	PDLC ^jv

^a Wavelength of UV-Visible absorbance maxima in solution; ^b Wavelength of emission maxima in solution; ^c Photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) in chloroform solution measured by relative methods using as standard quinine sulfate; ^d Wavelength of UV-Visible absorbance maxima on thin film; ^e wavelength of emission maxima on thin film; ^f PL quantum yield on thin film; ^j neat sample; ^jj sample dispersed in PS 10% by weight; ^jjj sample dispersed in PVK at 10% by weight; ^jv sample dispersed in QYPDLC-102 nematic polymer at 1% by weight. Less intense maxima in brackets.