4.7 Article

Reversible Degradation in Hole Transport Layer-Free Carbon-Based Perovskite Solar Cells

期刊

SOLAR RRL
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/solr.202200281

关键词

carbon-based perovskite solar cells; degradation; intermediate hydrate phase; long-term ambient stability; reverse

资金

  1. NCC Fund [NCC2020PY01]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Nankai University [63211043]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2020M680861]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the long-term stability of HTL-free carbon-based perovskite solar cells in the ambient air environment and discovers a reversible degradation phenomenon. The study also finds that the short-circuit current density and open-circuit voltage are minimally affected, while only the fill factor is reduced. Furthermore, a minute-heating treatment can eliminate the reversible degradation.
The rationale for ambient degradation behaviors in hole transport layer (HTL)-free carbon-based perovskite solar cells (PSCs) still remains a mystery, although carbon-based PSCs have been the frontrunner among the emerging next-generation photovoltaics owing to their low cost of materials and fabrication process, as well as the exceptional durability. Herein, the long-term stability of HTL-free carbon-based PSCs (H-C-PSCs) in the ambient air environment is investigated to thoroughly understand and identify the governing chemistry during the degradation. Specifically, a reversible degradation phenomenon is observed along with an anomalous S-shape of current-voltage curves involving only reduction of fill factor (FF), almost without impact for short-circuit current density and open-circuit voltage. Furthermore, a minute-heating treatment will eliminate the reversible degradation which can be attributed to the reversible formation of intermediate hydrate at the interface between perovskite and carbon contact. This provides a new perspective for the stability issue of H-C-PSCs.

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