| Literature DB >> 27527565 |
Il Jeon1, Clement Delacou2, Antti Kaskela3, Esko I Kauppinen3, Shigeo Maruyama2,4, Yutaka Matsuo1,2,5.
Abstract
Organic solar cells are flexible and inexpensive, and expected to have a wide range of applications. Many transparent organic solar cells have been reported and their success hinges on full transparency and high power conversion efficiency. Recently, carbon nanotubes and graphene, which meet these criteria, have been used in transparent conductive electrodes. However, their use in top electrodes has been limited by mechanical difficulties in fabrication and doping. Here, expensive metal top electrodes were replaced with high-performance, easy-to-transfer, aerosol-synthesized carbon nanotubes to produce transparent organic solar cells. The carbon nanotubes were p-doped by two new methods: HNO3 doping via 'sandwich transfer', and MoOx thermal doping via 'bridge transfer'. Although both of the doping methods improved the performance of the carbon nanotubes and the photovoltaic performance of devices, sandwich transfer, which gave a 4.1% power conversion efficiency, was slightly more effective than bridge transfer, which produced a power conversion efficiency of 3.4%. Applying a thinner carbon nanotube film with 90% transparency decreased the efficiency to 3.7%, which was still high. Overall, the transparent solar cells had an efficiency of around 50% that of non-transparent metal-based solar cells (7.8%).Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27527565 PMCID: PMC4985658 DOI: 10.1038/srep31348
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic of the SWNT-laminated transparent solar cell (left) and photographs with different foci (right).
Figure 2Schematics of the architecture of (a) a conventional inverted OSC, (b) an SWNT-based transparent OSC, (c) a HNO3-doped SWNT-based transparent OSC, and (d) a MoOx-doped SWNT-based transparent OSC.
Photovoltaic performance for SWNT-based transparent inverted OSCs under one sun, AM 1.5G illumination (100 mW/cm2).
| Device | Light direction | Anode | Dopant | FF | PCEbest (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | from ITO | Ag | None | 0.73 | 16.0 | 0.65 | 16 | 6.4 × 104 | 7.8 |
| B | from SWNT | SWNT T = 90% | 0.58 | 4.8 | 0.32 | 470 | 4.6 × 105 | 0.9 | |
| C | from ITO | 0.66 | 6.5 | 0.40 | 320 | 8.9 × 104 | 1.8 | ||
| D | with reflector | 0.66 | 8.6 | 0.39 | 280 | 5.8 × 104 | 2.2 | ||
| E | from ITO | SWNT T = 90% | HNO3 | 0.69 | 9.5 | 0.56 | 70 | 1.5 × 104 | 3.7 |
| F | MoOx | 0.62 | 8.8 | 0.56 | 100 | 1.8 × 105 | 3.1 | ||
| G | SWNT T = 60% | HNO3 | 0.70 | 9.0 | 0.65 | 53 | 1.6 × 107 | 4.1 | |
| H | MoOx | 0.68 | 8.2 | 0.60 | 61 | 8.4 × 105 | 3.4 |
Footnote: T = transmittance.
Figure 3J-V curves under one sun (red dotted) and in the dark (blue plane) for (a) an SWNT-based transparent OSC with light from the SWNT side, (b) an SWNT-based transparent OSC with light from the ITO side, (c) an SWNT-based transparent OSC with light from the ITO side and a reflector, (d) a conventional inverted OSC, (e) a HNO3-SWNT sandwich transfer OSC with light from the ITO side, and (f) a MoOx-SWNT bridge transfer OSC with light from the ITO side.
Figure 4Schematics of HNO3 doping sandwich transfer process (above) and MoOx thermal doping bridge transfer process (below).
Figure 5J-V curves of 60% transparent SWNT-based OSCs fabricated by the HNO3 sandwich transfer method (red line) and the MoOx bridge transfer method (blue line).