| Literature DB >> 31728291 |
Pengju Shi1,2, Yong Ding1,2, Yingke Ren1,2, Xiaoqiang Shi1,2, Zulqarnain Arain1,2, Cheng Liu1,2, Xuepeng Liu2, Molang Cai1,2, Guozhong Cao3, Mohammad Khaja Nazeeruddin4, Songyuan Dai1,2.
Abstract
Formamidinium (FA) lead halide (α-FAPbI3) perovskites are promising materials for photovoltaic applications because of their excellent light harvesting capability (absorption edge 840 nm) and long carrier diffusion length. However, it is extremely difficult to prepare a pure α-FAPbI3 phase because of its easy transformation into a nondesirable δ-FAPbI3 phase. In the present study, a "perovskite" template (MAPbI3-FAI-PbI2-DMSO) structure is used to avoid and suppress the formation of δ-FAPbI3 phases. The perovskite structure is formed via postdeposition involving the treatment of colloidal MAI-PbI2-DMSO film with FAI before annealing. In situ X-ray diffraction in vacuum shows no detectable δ-FAPbI3 phase during the whole synthesis process when the sample is annealed from 100 to 180 °C. This method is found to reduce defects at grain boundaries and enhance the film quality as determined by means of photoluminescence mapping and Kelvin probe force microscopy. The perovskite solar cells (PSCs) fabricated by this method demonstrate a much-enhanced short-circuit current density ( J sc) of 24.99 mA cm-2 and a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 21.24%, which is the highest efficiency reported for pure FAPbI3, with great stability under 800 h of thermal ageing and 500 h of light soaking in nitrogen.Entities:
Keywords: high quality; highest efficiency; perovskite solar cells; pure phase; template‐assisted
Year: 2019 PMID: 31728291 PMCID: PMC6839747 DOI: 10.1002/advs.201901591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) ISSN: 2198-3844 Impact factor: 16.806
Figure 1a) Schematic illustration of postprocessing for the fabrication of FA‐based perovskite films. b–e) In situ X‐ray diffraction of the perovskite films in vacuum during postprocessing. The temperature increases at 5 °C min−1, and the soaking time of each scan is 10 min with a characterization speed of 10° per min.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the template‐assisted perovskite mechanism for the fabrication of phase‐pure α‐FAPbI3 perovskite films.
Figure 3XRD peaks for the a) (110) plane and b) (220) plane of the films postprocessed with different FAI concentrations (10, 20, 30, and 40 mg mL−1). c) The lattice parameter of the postprocessed films with different FA contents. The lattice parameter is calculated from the Bragg equation: 2dsinθ = nλ (λ = 1.54056 Å). The line is a linear fitting of the lattice parameters. d) UV–visible absorption spectra of the postprocessed films.
Figure 4Cross‐sectional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images: a) FAI‐10, b) FAI‐20, c) FAI‐30, and d) FAI‐40. The yellow line distinguishes the different samples. The green line distinguishes the cross‐sectional SEM at different microscope magnifications (the top is 2000×, while the below is 1000×). The red line distinguishes the perovskite and substrate. Corresponding top‐view SEM images of e) FAI‐10, f) FAI‐20, g) FAI‐30, and h) FAI‐40 films. Atomic force microscope (AFM) images of i) FAI‐10, j) FAI‐20, k) FAI‐30, and l) FAI‐40 films.
Figure 5Confocal photoluminescence (PL) peak maps of the a) FAI‐30 and b) FAI‐20 configurations infiltrated into a nonquenching compact layer and measured through the glass side. The corresponding peak intensity maps of c) FAI‐30 and d) FAI‐20 films, respectively. Kelvin probe force microscope (KPFM) images of e) FAI‐30 and f) FAI‐20 films, respectively. All of the areas are 10 × 10 µm2 each.
Figure 6Analysis of defects on the FAI‐20 and FAI‐30 films via a) time‐resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) spectra, b) space‐charge‐limited current (SCLC) measurements, c) electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and d) density of defect measurements.
Figure 7a) EQE spectra of the best‐performing devices based on FAI‐20 and FAI‐30 films with respective integrated J sc curves. b) Stabilized J sc at the maximum power point of FAI‐20‐ and FAI‐30‐based devices. c) J–V curves of the best FAI‐20‐ and FAI‐30‐based devices. d) Histogram of average efficiencies of FAI‐20‐ and FAI‐30‐based devices (28 devices).