| Literature DB >> 31052172 |
Danila Saranin1, Pavel Gostischev2, Dmitry Tatarinov3, Inga Ermanova4, Vsevolod Mazov5, Dmitry Muratov6, Alexey Tameev7, Denis Kuznetsov8, Sergey Didenko9, Aldo Di Carlo10,11.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Inverted perovskite solar cells; interface stability; passivation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31052172 PMCID: PMC6540312 DOI: 10.3390/ma12091406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1(a) Device schematics for inverted perovskite solar cells (PSC) with copper (iodide) CuI passivation layer; (b) band profile for PSC with nickel oxide (NiO)/CuI Hole Transporting Layer (HTL) studied in this work (energy levels from [66,67,68]). PCBM: Phenyl-C61-butyric acid methyl ester; (MAPbI3): methylammonium lead iodide; BCP: bathocuproine.
Figure 2Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of CuI coating on the top of NiO concerning concentrations used for the deposition (a) reference NiO, (b) 0.05 M; (c) 0.10 M; and (d) 0.20 M.
Figure 3(a) The absorbance spectrum of single NiO HTL and double NiO/CuI films; (b) MAPbI3 photoluminescence (PL) quenching on different HTL configurations.
Figure 4(a) Current voltage (JV) curves for a fabricated solar cell with a single NiO HTL and double NiO -CuI HTL, (b) external quantum efficiency (EQE) spectra of devices with reference NiO HTL, and best performing CuI interlayer deposited from 0.10 M solution.
Photovoltaic parameters for the most efficient PSCs with the different HTLs used in work. PCE: power conversion efficiency; FF: fill factor; Rs: average series resistance; Rsh: average shunt resistance.
| HTL Type | Voc, V | Jsc, mA/cm2 | FF | PCE, % | Rs, Ω·cm2 | Rsh, kΩ·cm2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NiO | Best | 1.02 | −21.10 | 0.65 | 14.00 | 7.87 | 1.6 |
| Average * | 1.01 | −20.22 | 0.65 (±0.02) | 13.33 | 7.88 | 1.5 | |
| (±0.02) | (±0.50) | (±0.48) | (±0.24) | (±0.053) | |||
| CuI 0.05 M | Best | 0.67 | −14.25 | 0.66 | 6.30 | 4.75 | 0.34 |
| Average ** | 0.51 | −13.83 | 0.62 | 4.41 | 4.81 | 0.29 | |
| (±0.09) | (±0.51) | (±0.04) | (±1.14) | (±0.16) | (±0.02) | ||
| CuI 0.10 M | Best | 0.73 | −16.39 | 0.68 | 8.13 | 4.31 | 0.41 |
| Average ** | 0.68 | −16.17 | 0.68 | 7.44 | 4.52 | 0.35 | |
| (±0.07) | (±0.33) | (±0.02) | (±0.78) | (±0.13) | (±0.04) | ||
| CuI 0.20 M | Best | 0.95 | −17.57 | 0.71 | 11.82 | 4.77 | 0.66 |
| Average ** | 0.80 | −17.07 | 0.70 | 9.83 | 4.80 | 0.61 | |
| (±0.08) | (±0.38) | (±0.01) | (±1.06) | (±0.07) | (±0.02) | ||
| NiO/ 0.05 M CuI | Best | 1.06 | −18.48 | 0.68 | 13.32 | 7.61 | 2.4 |
| Average * | 1.05 | −19.02 | 0.67 (±0.02) | 13.26 | 7.63 | 2.3 | |
| (±0.01) | (±0.71) | (±0.37) | (±0.23) | (±0.081) | |||
| NiO/ 0.10 M CuI | Best | 1.07 | −20.60 | 0.69 | 15.26 | 6.05 | 3.3 |
| Average * | 1.06 | −19.88 | 0.68 (±0.02) | 14.23 | 6.07 | 3.2 | |
| (±0.02) | (±0.77) | (±0.72) | (±0.19) | (±0.112) | |||
| NiO/ 0.20 M CuI | Best | 1.07 | −17.20 | 0.68 | 12.51 | 6.06 | 3.9 |
| Average * | 1.06 | −17.40 | 0.64 (±0.02) | 11.78 | 6.13 | 3.9 | |
| (±0.03) | (±0.89) | (±0.64) | (±0.27) | (±0.135) | |||
* ± spread of the data was calculated from the standard deviation for 16 devices for each HTL type. ** ± spread of the data was calculated from the standard deviation from 10 devices for each HTL type.
Figure 5Transient photo current measurement s for the reference cell with single NiO HTL and double NiO/CuI (0.10 M) HTL in RISE (a) and FALL mode (b).
Figure 6(a) Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) plot of devices with reference NiO HTL and CuI passivated double HTL, (b) PCE Shelf life measurements of devices with reference NiO HTL, and CuI passivated double HTL.