4.8 Article

Morphology changes upon scaling a high-efficiency, solution-processed solar cell

期刊

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 2835-2846

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6ee01623e

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIST-NRC postdoctoral fellowship
  2. U.S. Department of Commerce
  3. National Institute of Standards and Technology [70NANB15H079]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Science, Division of Materials Science and Engineering [DE-FG02-98ER45737]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solution processing via roll-to-roll (R2R) coating promises a low cost, low thermal budget, sustainable revolution for the production of solar cells. Poly[(5,6-difluoro-2,1,3-benzothiadiazol-4,7-diyl)-alt-(3,3 ''' di(2-octyldodecyl)-2,2';5',2 ''; 5 '',2 '''-quaterthiophen-5,5-diyl)], PffBT4T-2OD, has recently been shown to achieve high power conversion efficiency (>10%) paired with multiple acceptors when thick films are spun-coat from hot solutions. We present detailed morphology studies of PffBT4T-2OD based bulk heterojunction films deposited by the volume manufacturing compatible techniques of blade-coating and slot-die coating. Significant aspects of the film morphology, the average crystal domain orientation and the distribution of the characteristic phase separation length scales, are remarkably different when deposited by the scalable techniques vs. spun-coat. Yet, we find that optimized blade-coated devices achieve PCE > 9.5%, nearly the same as spun-coat. These results challenge some widely accepted propositions regarding what is an optimal BHJ morphology and suggest the hypothesis that diversity in the morphology that supports high performance may be a characteristic of manufacturable systems, those that maintain performance when coated thicker than approximate to 200 nm. In situ measurements reveal the key differences in the solidification routes for spin-and blade-coating leading to the distinct film structures.

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

4.8
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