4.8 Article

Comparing Multiple Exciton Generation in Quantum Dots To Impact Ionization in Bulk Semiconductors: Implications for Enhancement of Solar Energy Conversion

Journal

NANO LETTERS
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages 3019-3027

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nl101490z

Keywords

Multiple exciton generation; carrier multiplication; solar energy conversion; semiconductor nanocrystals; quantum dots

Funding

  1. Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences in the Office or Basic Energy Sciences of the Department of Energy
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences
  3. DOE [AC36-086038308]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple excitor) generation (MEG) in quantum dots (QDs) and impact ionization (II) in bulk semiconductors are processes that describe producing more than one electron hole pair per absorbed photon. We derive expressions for the proper way to compare MEG in QDs with II in bulk semiconductors and argue that there are important differences in the photophysics between bulk semiconductors and QDs. Our analysis demonstrates that the fundamental unit of energy required to produce each electron hole pair in a given QD is the band gap energy. We find that the efficiency of the multiplication process increases by at least 2 in PbSe QDs compared to bulk PbSe, while the competition between cooling and multiplication favors multiplication by a factor of 3 in QDs. We also demonstrate that power conversion efficiencies in QD solar cells exhibiting MEG can greatly exceed conversion efficiencies of their bulk counterparts, especially if the MEG threshold energy can be reduced toward twice the QD band gap energy, which requires a further increase in the MEG efficiency. Finally, we discuss the research challenges associated with achieving the maximum benefit of MEG in solar energy conversion since we show the threshold and efficiency are mathematically related.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available