| Literature DB >> 30155151 |
Zhao Hu1, Weifei Fu2, Lijia Yan3, Jingsheng Miao1, Hongtao Yu3, Yaowu He1, Osamu Goto1, Hong Meng1,3, Hongzheng Chen2, Wei Huang3.
Abstract
Three new spirofluorene-based hole transport materials, Spiro-S, Spiro-N, and Spiro-E, are synthesized by replacing the para-methoxy substituent in 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamine)-9,9'-spirobifluorene (Spiro-MeOTAD) with methylsulfanyl, N,N-dimethylamino and ethyl groups. Their properties as hole transport materials in perovskite solar cells are investigated. The impact of replacing the para-methoxy substituent on bulk properties, such as the photophysical properties, HOMO/LUMO energy level, hole extraction properties and morphologies of perovskite thin films are investigated. Their optoelectronic and charge-transport properties and performance in perovskite solar cells are compared with the current benchmarked and structurally-related hole transport material (HTM) Spiro-MeOTAD. Surprisingly, the methylsulfanyl substituted spirofluorene shows the highest power conversion efficiency of 15.92% among the investigated spirofluorenes, which is an over 38% increase in PCE compared with that of Spiro-MeOTAD under similar device fabrication conditions.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 30155151 PMCID: PMC6018644 DOI: 10.1039/c6sc00973e
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.825
Fig. 1Chemical structures of the HTMs.
Fig. 2(a) Cyclic voltammograms of Spiro-MeOTAD, Spiro-S, Spiro-N, Spiro-E and ferrocene. (b) UV-vis spectra of the HTMs in solution and thin film.
Fig. 3(a) The structure of the perovskite solar cell devices; (b) energy level diagram of the tested HTMs; (c) photocurrent density–voltage (J–V) curves and (d) EQE spectra of the corresponding solar cells.
The hole mobility of different HTMs
| HTM |
|
| Spiro-MeOTAD | 1.55 ± 0.28 |
| Spiro-E | 1.26 ± 0.21 |
| Spiro-N | 0.25 ± 0.04 |
| Spiro-S | 1.90 ± 0.38 |
The values were calculated by averaging data collected from eight devices.
Summary of photovoltaic parameters of the solar cells using different HTMs
| HTL |
|
| FF | PCE | Calculated |
| Spiro-MeOTAD | 1.04 (1.00 ± 0.04) | 17.04 (17.42 ± 0.55) | 0.65 (0.60 ± 0.03) | 11.55 (10.37 ± 0.54) | 15.55 |
| Spiro-E | 1.07 (1.07 ± 0.01) | 18.24 (18.43 ± 0.32) | 0.80 (0.74 ± 0.04) | 15.75 (14.63 ± 0.70) | 17.57 |
| Spiro-N | 0.96 (0.92 ± 0.02) | 16.55 (16.09 ± 0.48) | 0.75 (0.74 ± 0.02) | 11.92 (10.95 ± 0.75) | 14.88 |
| Spiro-S | 1.06 (1.05 ± 0.03) | 19.15 (18.64 ± 0.43) | 0.78 (0.77 ± 0.01) | 15.92 (15.08 ± 0.50) | 17.75 |
Fig. 4Top-view SEM of (a) Spiro-MeOTAD, (b) Spiro-E, (c) Spiro-N, and (d) Spiro-S.
Fig. 5(a) Steady state PL spectra of the perovskite films on different HTM substrates; (b) time-resolved PL measurements taken at the peak emission wavelength (765 nm) of the perovskite films on different HTM substrates.