| Literature DB >> 35003331 |
Sofiia Kosar1, Andrew J Winchester1, Tiarnan A S Doherty2, Stuart Macpherson2, Christopher E Petoukhoff1, Kyle Frohna2, Miguel Anaya2,3, Nicholas S Chan1, Julien Madéo1, Michael K L Man1, Samuel D Stranks2,3, Keshav M Dani1.
Abstract
With rapidly growing photoconversion efficiencies, hybrid perovskite solar cells have emerged as promising contenders for next generation, low-cost photovoltaic technologies. Yet, the presence of nanoscale defect clusters, that form during the fabrication process, remains critical to overall device operation, including efficiency and long-term stability. To successfully deploy hybrid perovskites, we must understand the nature of the different types of defects, assess their potentially varied roles in device performance, and understand how they respond to passivation strategies. Here, by correlating photoemission and synchrotron-based scanning probe X-ray microscopies, we unveil three different types of defect clusters in state-of-the-art triple cation mixed halide perovskite thin films. Incorporating ultrafast time-resolution into our photoemission measurements, we show that defect clusters originating at grain boundaries are the most detrimental for photocarrier trapping, while lead iodide defect clusters are relatively benign. Hexagonal polytype defect clusters are only mildly detrimental individually, but can have a significant impact overall if abundant in occurrence. We also show that passivating defects with oxygen in the presence of light, a previously used approach to improve efficiency, has a varied impact on the different types of defects. Even with just mild oxygen treatment, the grain boundary defects are completely healed, while the lead iodide defects begin to show signs of chemical alteration. Our findings highlight the need for multi-pronged strategies tailored to selectively address the detrimental impact of the different defect types in hybrid perovskite solar cells. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35003331 PMCID: PMC8658252 DOI: 10.1039/d1ee02055b
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Energy Environ Sci ISSN: 1754-5692 Impact factor: 38.532
Fig. 1Presence of multiple types of defects on nanoscale. (a) Schematic of PEEM experimental setup: UV probe pulses cause photoemission of electrons from sample surface; electrons are then accelerated through hemispherical energy analyzer, dispersed in energy, and imaged on CCD camera for each energy. Inset shows energy level diagram of hybrid perovskite: arrows indicate transitions from defect states (defects) below the Fermi level (EF), valence band states (EV), conduction band states (EC) to vacuum states (EVac) upon probing of sample with photon energies of 4.65 eV (green arrow) and 6.2 eV (grey arrow). (b) Overlaid PEEM image of surface morphology obtained by illuminating the sample with 6.2 eV photons (grey contrast) and image of defect clusters acquired with 4.65 eV photons (green contrast). (c) PEEM image taken with 4.65 eV probe photons, overlaid with colored boxes showing nXRD regions of interest. (d) Local diffraction pattern extracted from the pristine region marked grey in (c) showing the (100) peak of a cubic perovskite. (e) Local diffraction pattern extracted from the defect cluster marked with a red box in (c) showing the (011) peak of PbI2. (f) Local diffraction pattern extracted from the defect cluster marked with a blue box in (c) showing the (011) peak of a 6H hexagonal perovskite polytype.
Fig. 2Nature of multiple defect types. (a) High resolution PEEM images for three types of selected defect clusters, as labelled. (b) Representative photoelectron spectra for three types of defect clusters exhibiting both contributions from valence and mid-gap states. Grey line shows signal from a representative pristine region with main contribution from valence states. (c) Estimated peak energies of the mid-gap defect states for the three types of defects plotted based on fitting of photoemission spectra (Fig. S5, ESI†). (d) Work function maps for the same regions as (a). (e) SEM images for same regions as (a and d). (f) AFM images for the same regions as (a, d and e) with line profiles through the defect clusters indicating the raised height only for the PbI2 defect clusters. Solid black line indicates mean height for the sample, with grey shaded area denoting the root-mean-square bounds.
Fig. 3Role of different types of defect clusters in performance losses. (a) Schematic of TR-PEEM experiment: sample is photoexcited with a pump pulse and probed with a time-delayed UV pulse. Photoemission signal is recorded as a sequence of images. Inset shows energy level diagram for perovskite sample: red arrow shows transition from valence band (EV) to conduction band (EC) upon photoexciting sample with 1.55 eV pump photons; green arrow shows transitions from mid-gap defect levels (defects) below the Fermi level (EF) to vacuum levels (EVac) upon probing the sample with 4.65 eV photons in PEEM. (b) Static PEEM images (left column) of a pristine region with no defects followed by regions with the three types of defect clusters, as labelled. Remaining columns denote the TR-PEEM intensity changes as (I(t) − I0), in those regions for four different pump–probe delays: 0 ps, 10 ps, 100 ps and 400 ps. (c) TR-PEEM traces, i.e. percentage change in PEEM intensity after photoexcitation ([I(t) − I0]/I0 × 100) plotted versus pump–probe time-delay for the pristine region and for the three types of defect clusters. Solid lines represent exponential decay fits. (d) Photoluminescence maps overlaid with PEEM images (green contrast) for a pristine region, and regions exhibiting the three different types of defect clusters. PEEM intensity here plotted on logarithmic scale.
Fig. 4Response of different types of defect clusters to treatment with visible light and mild dry air environment. (a) TR-PEEM decay curves averaged for multiple grain boundary defect clusters plotted as ([I(t) − I0]/I0 × 100) for unexposed case and after treatment with 1 mbar dry air pressure upon illumination, as labelled. (b) PEEM images of the representative grain boundary defect cluster for unexposed case and after treatment with visible light and dry air. Remaining columns show the TR-PEEM signal at different time-delays for the corresponding regions. (c) TR-PEEM decay curves averaged for multiple defect clusters of the same type before and after the treatment with dry air upon illumination for PbI2 defect clusters. (d) TR-PEEM decay curves before and after the treatment for polytype defect clusters. (f) PEEM images for selected defect clusters as labelled (left column) and local work function maps (right columns) for unexposed case and after treatment with dry air upon illumination.