4.6 Article

New photosensitizers that are based on carbazoles and have thiophene bridges with a low bandgap do 32% better than N719 metal complex dye

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jphotochem.2022.114421

Keywords

Carbazole sensitizers; N719; Thiazolidine-4-one acceptor; Anchoring; DFT; Photovoltaic parameters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The synthesis of metal-free organic sensitizers is crucial for obtaining low-cost, high-efficiency dye-sensitized solar cells. In this study, the photovoltaic analysis of four carbazole organic sensitizers with a D-A architecture was conducted, showing that these sensitizers can achieve broader light-harvesting ability and higher photovoltaic efficiency.
Synthesis of metal-free organic sensitizers is a promising route for obtaining low-cost, high-efficiency sensitizers for dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs). We present the results of a comprehensive photovoltaic analysis of four carbazole organic sensitizers with a D-A architecture in this study. MES 1-4 have been developed and used as sensitizers in DSSC applications. Using MES1-4 as sensitizers results in a broader light-harvesting ability (400-800 nm) and higher photovoltaic efficiency at a range of 6.06-9.55 %. Herein, the introduction of thiazolidine-4-one ring engineering into MES4 as a rich electron acceptor enhanced electron injection and inhibited electron recombination in thiazolidine-4-one sensitizers. The MES4 system has the highest light har-vesting ability and reflectivity owing to the existence of distinct functional groups that enhanced the capacity to bind the dye with the semiconductor layer (TiO2 device's efficiency). In conclusion, the DSSC using the novel electron acceptor thiazolidine-4-one ring sensitizer achieves an unexpected PCE of 9.55 % and a 32 % increase over using the N719 metal complex dye. All sensitizers based on carbazole compounds had good photovoltaic performance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available