450 nm (CPS450)
0 OD

integration time 115 ms
scans to average 8
saturation at 125 ms
nonlinearity correction on

laser range 440 460 nm
pl detection range 475 650 nm


incidence on encapsulation slide

- empty and bckg for each sample
- only took 6-7 samples out of the glovebox at the time before measuring, to avoid many hours of ambient exposure to any sample
- 3 measurements each sample. Aim for inside the encapsulation slide on 3 laterally adjacent spots (left, centre, right), picked relative to substrate label (with incidence on the encapsulation slide)
- left: clamp over the third digit (i.e. 2 in 012345)
- centre (cen): over the fifth digit (i.e. 4 in 012345)
- right (r): right after the last digit (i.e. right after 5 in 012345)
- label digits are in the top right corner when seen from the incidence of the beam
- left centre and right is a bit "weird" to say because for 'left' I had the centre of mass of the sample to the left of the clamp when seen from the incidence path, i.e. the beam (going roughly under the clamp) hits on the right of the sample when seen from that direction. This, however, does correspond with the left of the sample when seen from the glass side with the labels reading "the right way".

Observations:
Seems wetting marks make little difference, but encapsulation quality or glue inhomogeneity does. A lot of the samples that were poorly glued by the robot and that I therefore did 5 second fix on have diverging values from their equivalents. I think I should chuck these samples out of the analysis. This could maybe partially explain the large deviations of the PLQE of the glass samples, because these are difficult to measure repeatedly the same way.