4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Effect of the Geometry of the Anodized Titania Nanotube Array on the Performance of Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 4551-4561

出版社

AMER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1166/jnn.2010.1695

关键词

Titanium Dioxide; Nanotube Array; Wall Thickness; Optimal Length; Pore Diameter; Intertube Spacing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly ordered TiO2 nanotube arrays are superior photoanodes for dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs) due to reduced intertube connections, vectorial electron transport, suppressed electron recombination, and enhanced light scattering. Performance of the cells is greatly affected by tube geometry, such as wall thickness, length, inner diameter and intertube spacing. In this paper, effect of geometry on the photovoltaic characteristics of DSSCs is reviewed. The nanotube wall has to be thick enough for a space charge layer to form for faster electron transportation and reduced recombination. When the tube wall is too thin to support the space charge layer, electron transport in the nanotubes will be hindered and reduced to that similar in a typical nanoparticle photoanode, and recombination will easily take place. Length of the nanotubes also plays a role: longer tube length is desired because of more dye loading, however, tube length longer than the electron diffusion length results in low collecting efficiency, which in turn, results in low short-circuit current density and thus low overall conversion efficiency. The tube inner diameter (pore size) affects the conversion efficiency through effective surface area, i.e., larger pore size gives rise to smaller surface area for dye adsorption, which results in low short-circuit current density under the same light soaking. Another issue that may seriously affect the conversion efficiency is whether each of the tube stands alone (free from connecting to the neighboring tubes) to facilitate infiltration of dye and fully use the outer surface area.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据