| Literature DB >> 28273950 |
Robertas Tiazkis1, Sanghyun Paek2, Maryte Daskeviciene1, Tadas Malinauskas1, Michael Saliba2, Jonas Nekrasovas3, Vygintas Jankauskas3, Shahzada Ahmad4, Vytautas Getautis5, Mohammad Khaja Nazeeruddin6.
Abstract
The molecular structure of the hole transporting material (HTM) play an important role in hole extraction in a perovskite solar cells. It has a significant influence on the molecular planarity, energy level, and charge transport properties. Understanding the relationship between the chemical structure of the HTM's and perovskite solar cells (PSCs) performance is crucial for the continued development of the efficient organic charge transporting materials. Using molecular engineering approach we have constructed a series of the hole transporting materials with strategically placed aliphatic substituents to investigate the relationship between the chemical structure of the HTMs and the photovoltaic performance. PSCs employing the investigated HTMs demonstrate power conversion efficiency values in the range of 9% to 16.8% highlighting the importance of the optimal molecular structure. An inappropriately placed side group could compromise the device performance. Due to the ease of synthesis and moieties employed in its construction, it offers a wide range of possible structural modifications. This class of molecules has a great potential for structural optimization in order to realize simple and efficient small molecule based HTMs for perovskite solar cells application.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28273950 PMCID: PMC5428027 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00271-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Structures of the investigated hole transporting materials HTM1–5.
Figure 2Synthetic route to hole transporting materials HTM1–5.
Figure 3Thermogravimetric (a) and differential scanning calorimetry (b) heating curves of HTM4 (heating rate 10 K min−1, N2 atmosphere).
Thermal and optical properties of the Spiro-OMeTAD, HTM1–5.
| Compound |
|
|
| Absmax b (nm) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HTM1 | — | 108 | 416 | 382 | 5.5 × 104 |
| HTM2 | — | 104 | 419 | 383 | 5.8 × 104 |
| HTM3 | — | 104 | 418 | 383 | 5.5 × 104 |
| HTM4 | — | 89 | 413 | 383 | 5.2 × 104 |
| HTM5 | — | 85 | 413 | 385 | 5.4 × 104 |
| Spiro | 245 | 126 | 449 | 387 | 6.9 × 104 |
aDetermined by DSC: scan rate, 10 K min−1; N2 atmosphere; second run. bMeasured in 10−4 M THF solution.
Figure 4UV–vis absorption spectra of HTM1–5, Spiro-OMeTAD (a) and oxidized Spiro(TFSI)2, HTM4TFSI (b) in THF (c = 10−4 M).
Electrochemical characteristics, I p, hole mobility for Spiro-OMeTAD, HTM1–5.
| Compound |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HTM1 | −5.13 | 5.05 | 1.4 × 10−5 | 5.9 × 10−4 |
| HTM2 | −5.05 | 5.00 | 1.3 × 10−5 | 3.8 × 10−4 |
| HTM3 | −5.14 | 5.00 | 1 × 10−9 | 3 × 10−7 |
| HTM4 | −5.05 | 4.92 | 2.2 × 10−5 | 3.8 × 10−4 |
| HTM5 | −5.08 | 5.03 | 1.1 × 10−5 | 3.8 × 10−4 |
| Spiro | −5.12 | 5.00 | 4.1 × 10−5 | 5 × 10−4 |
| HTM1 + PC | — | — | 3.9 × 10−7 | 2.3 × 10−5 |
| HTM2 + PC | — | — | 4.0 × 10−7 | 1.9 × 10−5 |
| HTM3 + PC | — | — | 1.5 × 10−8 | 1.3 × 10−7 |
| HTM4 + PC | — | — | 1.1 × 10−6 | 3.7 × 10−5 |
| HTM5 + PC | — | — | 5.8 × 10−7 | 2.8 × 10−5 |
| Spiro + PC | — | — | 2.9 × 10−6 | 6.8 × 10−5 |
aCV measurements were carried out at a glassy carbon electrode in dichloromethane solutions containing 0.1 M tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate as electrolyte and Pt wire as the reference electrode. Each measurement was calibrated with ferrocene (Fc). Conversion factors: ferrocene in DCM vs SCE 0.46[34], SCE vs SHE: 0.244[35], SHE vs. vacuum: 4.43[36]. bIonization potential was measured by the photoemission in air method from films. cMobility value at zero field strength. dMobility value at 6.4 × 105 V cm−1 field strength.
Figure 5Electric-field dependencies of the hole drift mobilities in charge-transport layers of HTM1–5 dispersed in polycarbonate polymeric matrix.
Figure 6Current (J)-voltage (V) curves of the solar cells with HTM1–5, and Spiro-OMeTAD (control) recorded under AM 1.5 conditions (100 mW/cm2).