4.7 Article

Interface studies of the planar heterojunction perovskite solar cells

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS AND SOLAR CELLS
Volume 157, Issue -, Pages 783-790

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2016.07.045

Keywords

Perovskite solar cells; Electron-collection interlayer; Rhodamine 101; Ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy; Kelvin probe force microscopy

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education in Singapore, Singapore [R-284-000-113-112]
  2. Young Talent fund of University Association for Science and Technology in Shaanxi, China [91802162501]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Planar perovskite solar cells (PSCs) with poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) and [6,6]-phenyl-C61-butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM) have attracted much interest because they can be fabricated by low temperature process and exhibit high power conversion efficiency (PCE). The PCE is strongly dependent on the interface properties between the PCBM layer and cathode. In this work, solution-processable material, rhodamine 101, was used as the interfacial layer between the PCBM layer and Ag cathode. These interfacial materials significantly increase the fill factor so as to the PCE of the PSCs. The optimal power conversion efficiencies are 13.2% (CH3NH3PbI3) and 14.8% (CH3NH3PbI3-xClx) for the devices with rhodamine 101 as the electron collection interlayer, saliently higher than that (8.5% and 12.0%) of control devices without an electron-collection interlayer. The effect of the interfacial material is carefully examined by time-resolved photoluminance spectroscopy (TR-PL), ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS), and kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) techniques. Decreased work-function and energy barrier, enhanced electron extraction and prolonged free carrier lifetime all contributed to the photovoltaic performance improvement. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available