Damage Threshold Data (Summary) Optical Damage Thresholds for Various Samples SampleFluence DT (J/cm 2 ) DNA/CTMA on SLG Substrate 2.3 to 2.6 DNA/CTMA W/O Substrate 2.1 (sample curved) Fused Silica 2.7 to 4.5 (AFRL = 4.3) SiC Semi-conducting 0.6 SiC Conducting 0.65 PMMA PMMA Optical Damage Threshold Comparable to that of Fused Silica

Thermal Conductivity [2] DNA & DNA/CTMA [measured - AFRL] PMMA [1] Large Thermal Conductivity Large Thermal Conductivity 0.12 W/mK for PMMA [1] 0.12 W/mK for PMMA [1] 0.82 W/mK DNA (~7X > PMMA) 0.82 W/mK DNA (~7X > PMMA) 0.62 W/mK DNA-CTMA (~5X > PMMA) 0.62 W/mK DNA-CTMA (~5X > PMMA) Potential For Getting Heat Out [1] Takashi Kodama, et al., “Heat Conduction through a DNA-Gold Composite,” Nano Letters, 9, 2005 (2009) [2] Hartnett, Cho, Greene and Bar-Cohen, Advances In Heat Transfer, Volume 39, p. 174, Academic Press, 2006

Ce 3+ :YAG Phosphor: Ce 3+ :YAG Phosphor: Merck: Isiphor YGA (LED phosphor) Epoxy: Epoxy: Epoxy Technology: EPO-TEK OG (LED epoxy) DNA-Biopolymer: DNA-Biopolymer: 12 wt% DNA-CTMA-C 4 H 9 OH (500 KDa, soxhlet rinse - no dialysis) DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting Materials DNA – Ogata Research Laboratory DNA – Ogata Research Laboratory CTMA – Sigma Aldrich (25 wt% CTMA in solution) CTMA – Sigma Aldrich (25 wt% CTMA in solution) C 4 H 9 OH – Sigma Aldrich C 4 H 9 OH – Sigma Aldrich

DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-Epoxy 45 µl drop onto nylon cap 45 µl drop onto nylon cap UV cure 100 mW for 10 min UV cure 100 mW for 10 min 40 o C for 60 min 40 o C for 60 min Processing 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-DNA/CTMA 45 µl drop onto nylon cap 45 µl drop onto nylon cap 40 o C for 60 min 40 o C for 60 min (no UV curing required)

DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting Sony  100 Camera Speed: 1/160 second Aperture: F wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-DNA/CTMA 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-Epoxy Characterization Light Source: Photon Micro Light ( λ = 470 nm) Phosphor + Host

DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting IGOR PRO 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-Epoxy 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-DNA/CTMA iPhotoLux app for Apple iPod Touch Central Bright Region 6X Larger for DNA-Based Material (6X Brighter ?) Photon Micro Light ( λ = 470 nm) Sony  100 Camera Speed: 1/160 second Aperture: F5.6 J. Grote, “Light emitting diode with a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) biopolymer”, US Patent 8,093,802 B1, Jan. 10, wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-DNA/CTMA 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-Epoxy

Blue LED 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-DNA/CTMA More Blue Component with Epoxy-Based Host More Longer Wavelength Components with DNA-Based Host DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting

DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting Chromaticity (CIE 1931 [x, y] Gamut Chart) Exact White [0.3127, ] 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-Epoxy [0.1975, ] 33 wt% Ce 3+ :YAG-DNA/CTMA [0.2441, ]

DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting Heat Exposure Epoxy µ m thick (flow coat) DNA/CTMA µ m thick (flow coat)

DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting 24 Hour UV Exposure ( λ = 365 nm) ( λ = 365 nm) Epoxy µ m thick (flow coat) DNA/CTMA µ m thick (flow coat) DNA-CTMA

Cost Analysis Cost Per Gram of Material DNA/CTMA$6.75 DNA/CTMA$ g DNA + 4 ml CTMA 0.5g DNA + 4 ml CTMA (25 wt% solution of CTMA in H 2 O) 12 wt% DNA/CTMA in C 4 H 9 OH$0.86 (~4X more) 12 wt% DNA/CTMA in C 4 H 9 OH$0.86 (~4X more) EPO-TEK OG Epoxy$0.20 EPO-TEK OG Epoxy$0.20 DNA Biopolymer-Based White Solid State Lighting Future DNA materials (estimated 10X-100X cost reduction) 12 wt% DNA/CTMA in C 4 H 9 OH$0.16 (~1.25X less) 12 wt% DNA/CTMA in C 4 H 9 OH$0.16 (~1.25X less) $0.06 (~3X less) Phosphor Coating Accounts for 5% - 10% of Cost of White LED

Deposition Techniques That Can Be Used Spin Deposit Cast Flow Coat Vacuum Deposit Ink Jet Print Pulsed Laser Spray Deposit Electro-Spin

Enhanced Fluorescence in Electrospun Dye-Doped DNA Nanofibers Fluorescent Dye Hemi22 λ ex = 460 nm (Hemi22) 4-[4-dimethylaminostyryl]- 1-docosylpyridinium bromide Y. Ner, et. al., “Enhanced Fluorescence in Electrospun Dye-Doped DNA Nanofibers ", Soft Matter, 4, 1-7, (2008) Acceptor Dye DNA-CTMA-Hemi22 Normalized Fluorescence Sample Intensity PMMA Film 2.2 x10 6 PMMA Nanofiber 1.1 x 10 7 DNA–CTMA Film 3.9 x 10 7 DNA–CTMA Nanofiber 2.3 x 10 8 Film Nanofiber ~10X Phosphor- DNA/CTMA Increased Surface Area Phosphor- DNA/CTMA

Summary & Conclusions (DNA-CTMA Host vs Epoxy) + Brighter (Higher Efficiency ?) + Closer to Exact White Light (More Longer Wavelengths Present) + Higher UV & Comparable Heat Tolerance (Longer Lifetime ?) + Lower Optical Loss + Acceptable Temperature Stability + Higher Thermal Conductivity + Higher Optical Damage Threshold + Higher Photochemical Stability + Comparable Low Temperature Processing + No UV Curing Required + Longer Shelf Life + Environmentally Friendly − ~4X More Expensive (Currently) + P otentially ~1.25X-3X Less Expensive (Future) Cost may not be an issue

Acknowledgments pEdison Materials Technology Center (EMTEC) pAir Force Research Laboratory Materials &Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/RX) pMerck (Ce 3+ :YAG phosphor) pRajesh Naik (jpeg to gamut chart conversion) pTimothy Gorman (IGOR PRO conversion) pDanny Grote (iPhotoLux conversion) pElizabeth Steenbergen (spectral data) pID Cast pWright Brothers Institute