4.7 Article

A round robin study of polymer solar cells and small modules across China

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS AND SOLAR CELLS
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 382-389

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2013.06.029

关键词

Round robin; Polymer solar cells; 15 Chinese laboratories; 30% variation; Inherent variability

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51011130028]
  3. NSFC [51225301, 91233104, 51273193, 50933003]
  4. 100 Talents Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  5. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program)
  6. External Cooperation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [GJHZ1220]
  7. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CBA00700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A round robin study across 15 laboratories in China was carried out using single junction devices with an active area of 1 cm(2) and differently sized small module with an active area of 20 and 24 cm(2) respectively. The devices represented the state of the art in terms of processing as they did not employ indium or vacuum and were prepared using only printing and coating techniques on flexible substrates. The devices were studied in their flexible form and thus approach the vision of what the polymer solar cell is. The main purpose of the work was to establish and chart geographic and cultural differences in what constitutes a competent IV-characterization procedure and also to establish the spread in measured data across the globe. The main finding is that efficiency data deviated up to 30% from the mean while an overall relative standard deviation of 12% was observed. Collating this spread with previous findings points toward a seemingly region-independent i.e. global observation of the uncertainty in the /Vcharacterization of a polymer solar cell. Finally, we highlight what might be done to improve the accuracy of the reported data. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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