4.7 Article

Promising long-term stability of encapsulated ITO-free bulk-heterojunction organic solar cells under different aging conditions

期刊

SOLAR ENERGY MATERIALS AND SOLAR CELLS
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 144-150

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2014.07.004

关键词

ITO-free organic solar cells; Long-term stability; Damp heat; Suns-Voc; Thermal stress; Continuous illumination

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Science (BMBF) [03EK3505H]
  2. Heinrich Boll Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports on the stability of encapsulated ITO-free bulk heterojunction organic solar cells (BHJOSC) with the layer sequence of Cr/Al/Cr/photoactive layer (PAL)/poly (3, 4-ethylenedioxythiophene) poly (styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS)/metal-grid under different aging conditions. The PAL consisted of poly (3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) as donor and (6,6)-phenyl-C-60 butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM) as acceptor. Completely flexible devices (encapsulated between two flexible barrier films) were able to maintain >95% of their initial device performance after 1000 h of aging under damp heat condition (85 degrees C/85% relative humidity) according to standard IEC 61646. Suns-Voc measurements reveal that there is a slight increase in both the transport resistance of the photoactive layer as well as the series resistance of the PEDOT:PSS electrode. Devices encapsulated between two glass plates were able to retain more than 90% of their initial device performance after ca. 1800 h of aging under damp heat condition. Similar devices encapsulated between two glass plates and between a glass plate and flexible barrier film showed almost no degradation after ca. 10,000 h under thermal stress of 85 degrees C (dark and ambient air). Further, remarkable stability of more than 12,000 h with less than 10% reduction in the device performance was achieved under continuous illumination of 1000 W/m(2) (similar to AM1.5G spectrum but with lower UV content). (C) 2014 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