| Literature DB >> 32190267 |
Yanjun Guan1, Mi Xu1, Wenhao Zhang1, Da Li1, Xiaomeng Hou1, Li Hong1, Qifei Wang1, Zhihui Zhang1, Anyi Mei1, Min Chen2, Yuanyuan Zhou2, Nitin P Padture2, Yue Hu1, Yaoguang Rong1, Hongwei Han1.
Abstract
Printable mesoscopic perovskite solar cells are usually fabricated by drop-casting perovskite precursor solution on a screen-printed mesoporous TiO2/ZrO2/carbon triple-layer followed by thermal annealing. They have attracted much attention due to their simple fabrication process and remarkable stability. However, challenges lie in how to achieve complete pore fillings of perovskites in the meso-pores and to obtain high-quality perovskite crystals. Here, we report an in situ crystal transfer (ICT) process based on gas-solid interaction to deposit perovskite CH3NH3PbI3 absorber in the scaffold. CH3NH3PbI3 single crystals are first transformed into a liquid phase via exposure to methylamine gas flow. After complete infiltration into the nano-structured scaffolds, the liquid phase is converted back to the solid phase with reduction of methylamine gas partial pressure, maintaining the high-quality of CH3NH3PbI3 single crystals. Compared with the conventional drop-casting method, the ICT method effectively leads to interconnected morphology and prolongs the charge-carrier lifetime (from ∼37.52 ns to ∼110.85 ns) of the perovskite absorber in the scaffold. As a result, the devices can deliver a power conversion efficiency of 15.89%, which is attributed to the suppressed charge recombination and correspondingly enhanced open-circuit voltage of 0.98 V. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 32190267 PMCID: PMC7067259 DOI: 10.1039/c9sc04900b
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Sci ISSN: 2041-6520 Impact factor: 9.825
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of the: (a) MAPbI3 single crystals and powders preparation process, (b) ICT reactor (the digital images are shown in Fig. S1†), and (c) ICT process from blank scaffold to perovskites infiltrated scaffold.
Fig. 2The cross-sectional SEM images of the device fabricated with (a and b) the drop-casting method and (c–f) the ICT method. Devices in (c and d) were treated for ∼9 minutes, and devices in (e and f) were treated for ∼35 minutes. The regions of the mesoporous scaffold that have not been filled by the perovskite absorber are marked by red rectangles. The connection between the perovskite absorber in the mesopores can be enhanced by prolonging the treating time, as in regions marked by blue rectangles.
Fig. 3Comparison of (a) UV-vis absorption spectra and (b) XRD spectra of MAPbI3 films deposited on mesoporous TiO2 scaffold using the drop-casting method and the ICT method. (c) 2D-XRD images of MAPbI3 films on mesoporous ZrO2 scaffold using the drop-casting method (right) and the ICT method (left).
Fig. 4The photoluminescence and lifetime imaging results for (a) spin-coated MAPbI3 and (b) ICT-deposited MAPbI3 on mesoporous ZrO2 scaffold (data collected both on surface and inside are shown). (c) The lifetime histograms of each sample are shown both on surface and inside (note: in order to avoid the formation of a capping layer on the mesoporous scaffold, spin-coating method was used instead of drop-casting method in this experiment).
Comparison of J–V parameters of devices fabricated using the two different methods
|
|
| FF | PCE (%) | |
| Drop-casting | 0.87 ± 0.03 | 16.75 ± 0.36 | 0.55 ± 0.08 | 7.95 ± 1.20 |
| ICT (∼9 min) | 0.88 ± 0.02 | 19.19 ± 2.84 | 0.56 ± 0.09 | 9.45 ± 1.18 |
| ICT (∼30 min) | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 22.18 ± 0.71 | 0.65 ± 0.08 | 13.83 ± 1.34 |
Fig. 5Comparison of (a) J–V curves and (b) distributions of the VOC, JSC, FF, and PCE for 15 printable mesoscopic PSCs in reverse scan. (c) PCEs of PSCs as a function exposure to the ambient atmosphere for up to 3500 hours. (d) The ambient temperature and relative humidity during the storage.