| Literature DB >> 32321928 |
Selvakumar Pitchaiya1,2, Nandhakumar Eswaramoorthy3, Muthukumarasamy Natarajan4, Agilan Santhanam1, Vijayshankar Asokan5, Venkatraman Madurai Ramakrishnan1,2, Balasundaraprabhu Rangasamy6, Senthilarasu Sundaram7, Punniamoorthy Ravirajan8, Dhayalan Velauthapillai9.
Abstract
al">Perovskite solar cells (PSCs) co<span class="Chemical">mposed of organic polymer-based hole-transporting materials (HTMs) are considered to be an important strategy in improving the device performance, to compete with conventional solar cells. Yet the use of such expensive and unstable HTMs, together with hygroscopic perovskite structure remains a concern - an arguable aspect for the prospect of onsite photovoltaic (PV) application. Herein, we have demonstrated the sustainable fabrication of efficient and air-stable PSCs composed of an invasive plant (Eichhornia crassipes) extracted porous graphitic carbon (EC-GC) which plays a dual role as HTM/counter electrode. The changes in annealing temperature (~450 °C, ~850 °C and ~1000 °C) while extracting the EC-GC, made a significant impact on the degree of graphitization - a remarkable criterion in determining the device performance. Hence, the fabricated champion device-1c: Glass/FTO/c-TiO2/mp-TiO2/CH3NH3PbI3-xClx/EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3-x Clx/EC-GC10) exhibited a PCE of 8.52%. Surprisingly, the introduced EC-GC10 encapsulated perovskite interfacial layer at the perovskite/HTM interface helps in overcoming the moisture degradation of the hygroscopic perovskite layer in which the same champion device-1c evinced better air stability retaining its efficiency ~94.40% for 1000 hours. We believe that this present work on invasive plant extracted carbon playing a dual role, together as an interfacial layer may pave the way towards a reliable perovskite photovoltaic device at low-cost.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32321928 PMCID: PMC7176691 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62900-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Structural analysis of the porous graphitic carbon materials extracted from an invasive plant species of Eichhornia Crassipes using different annealing temperatures ~450 °C (EC-GC4), ~850 °C (EC-GC8) and ~1000 °C (EC-GC10).
Figure 2Raman spectra of the porous graphitic carbon materials (a) EC-GC4, (b) EC-GC8 and (c) EC-GC10 synthesized using different annealing temperatures.
Conductivity measurement results of the porous graphitic carbon samples annealed at different temperatures.
| Annealing Temperature | Sample Name | Bulk Concentration (Nb) (cm−3) | Sheet Concentration (Ns) (cm−2) | Mobility (µ) (cm2V−1s−1) | Resistivity (ρ) (Ω cm) | Conductivity ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 450 °C | EC-GC4 | 2.37 × 1016 | 2.36 × 1014 | 20.37 | 1.49 × 10−2 | 67.33 |
| 850 °C | EC-GC8 | 6.06 × 1019 | 1.20 × 1016 | 37.81 | 1.46 × 10−2 | 68.05 |
| 1000 °C | EC-GC10 | 1.9 × 1021 | 9.21 × 1015 | 76.95 | 8.68 × 10−3 | 115.20 |
Figure 3Morphological and compositional analysis of the porous graphitic carbon. (a–c) FE-SEM images of porous graphitic carbon material synthesized at different temperatures of ~450 °C (EC-GC4), ~850 °C (EC-GC8) and ~1000 °C (EC-GC10) respectively. XPS analysis of EC-GC10 porous graphitic carbon powder (d) Survey spectrum (e,f) high-resolution C1s and O1s core level spectrum.
Figure 4N2 adsorption/desorption isotherm plots of (a) EC-GC4 (b) EC-GC8 (c) EC-GC10 using BET analysis and (d–f) shows the respective pore size distribution.
Figure 5Structural and morphological analysis of CH3NH3PbI3−xClx perovskite. (a,b) XRD pattern and FE-SEM image of mixed halide perovskite sample (CH3NH3PbI3−xClx) and (inset a) shows the photograph of the homogenous perovskite precursor solution (c) high resolution microscopic TEM image of CH3NH3PbI3−xClx perovskite and (d) magnified HRTEM image with lattice fringes.
Figure 6Structural and morphological analysis of EC-GC10 encapsulated CH3NH3PbI3−xClx perovskite material. (a,b) XRD pattern and FE-SEM image of graphitic carbon material encapsulated perovskite (inset a) shows the photograph of the heterogeneous EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx precursor solution (c) high resolution microscopic TEM image of EC-GC10 (~2 nm) encapsulated perovskite materials and (d) magnified HR-TEM image with lattice fringes of EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx.
Figure 7Photovoltaic performance of Carbon HTMs based PSCs. (a) Current density-voltage (J–V) characteristics of the invasive plant synthesized graphitic porous carbon annealed at different temperature (EC-GC4, EC-GC8 and EC-GC10) based hole transport material PSC devices. (b) J–V curves of devices without and with interfacial layer of 80 nm and 150 nm thickness (EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx). (c) Comparative study of the J–V characteristics of the different carbon EC-GC4, EC-GC8, EG-GC10, C/NiS and CC based HTM PSC devices. (d) J–V characteristics of the champion device-1c and the inset shows the photograph of the fabricated PSC.
Typical Photovoltaic parameters of PSCs fabricated using different carbon based hole extraction layer. Note: SC-Spin Coating, SP-Spray Pyrolysis, BP-Brush Painting.
| Device Structure | HTL | VOC (V) | JSC (mA/cm2) | FF (%) | PCE (%) | PCE (%) after 1000 hrs. | Deterioration (%) for 1000 hrs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Device-1a | EC-GC4 | 0.631 | 22.01 | 43.01 | 5.97 | 3.56 | 40.38 |
| Device-1b | EC-GC8 | 0.620 | 21.96 | 46.80 | 6.38 | 4.34 | 31.88 |
| Device-1c | EC-GC10 | 0.672 | 23.49 | 54.03 | 8.52 | 8.05 | 05.57 |
| Device-1d | C/NiS | 0.417 | 11.63 | 65.69 | 3.19 | 1.60 | 49.65 |
| Device-1e | CC | 0.749 | 17.51 | 63.77 | 8.36 | 6.73 | 19.52 |
| Device-1f | Without Interfacial Layer | 0.649 | 20.50 | 53.51 | 7.12 | 2.62 | 63.30 |
| Device-1g | Interfacial Layer (150 nm) | 0.719 | 18.81 | 55.05 | 7.43 | — | — |
aFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC4(BP).
bFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC8(BP).
cFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/80 nm - EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC10(BP).
dFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC4@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/C/NiS(BP).
eFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC4@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/CC(BP).
fFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC10(BP).
gFTO/c-TiO2(SP)/mp-TiO2(SC)/CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/150 nm - EC-GC10@CH3NH3PbI3−xClx(SC)/EC-GC10(BP).
Figure 8A comparative study of the parameters of device stability in terms of (a) VOC (b) JSC (c) FF and (d) PCE for the PSC devices fabricated using different HTMs (EC-GC4, EC-GC8, EG-GC10, C/NiS and CC carbon) under ambient room condition (25 ± 5 °C, 70 ± 5% humidity).
Figure 9Deterioration chart of different carbon based PSC devices (a) EC-GC4 in Device-1a (b) EC-GC8 in Device-1b (c) EC-GC10 in Device-1c (d) C/NiS in Device-1d (e) CC in Device-1e (f) Comparative stability study of all the PSCs fabricated using different carbon based HTMs (EC-GC4, EC-GC8, EG-GC10, C/NiS and CC carbon) and tested for 1000 hours under ambient room condition (25 ± 5 °C, 70 ± 5% humidity).