4.7 Article

Chemical-Bath-Deposited Zn(S,O) Buffer Achieves 12.0% Efficient Solution-Processed CIGS Solar Cells

期刊

ACS APPLIED ENERGY MATERIALS
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 12336-12346

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.2c01926

关键词

Cu(In, Ga)Se-2; solution-processing; chemical bath deposition; Cd-free; Zn(S, O); light-soaking

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [22075150]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2019YFE0118100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the use of a chemical-bath-deposited zinc sulfoxide buffer layer in solution-processed copper indium gallium selenide solar cells. By optimizing the deposition time and annealing process, a dense and uniform zinc sulfoxide buffer layer was achieved. The resulting solar cells showed a high power conversion efficiency of 12.0%.
The state-of-the-art copper indium gallium selenide Cu(In,Ga)Se-2 (CIGS) thin-film solar cells are fabricated based on vacuum methods and use cadmium sulfide as the buffer layer. Considering the cost-effective production and environmental safety, fabrication of a CIGS absorber via the solution process and using a cadmium-free buffer layer is desirable. Here, we report engineering of a chemical-bath-deposited zinc sulfoxide Zn(S,O) buffer layer for solution-processed CIGS solar cells. Our results show that optimization of the deposition time and annealing process of the Zn(S,O) film to avoid cracking is critical to obtain a dense and uniform Zn(S,O) buffer layer. Benefited from the large band gap of Zn(S,O) and light-soaking-induced device performance improvement, a champion CIGS solar cell with a power conversion efficiency of 12.0% (without antireflection coating) has been achieved. This is the first time that the Zn(S,O) buffer layer has been applied to a solution-processed CIGS absorber and achieves highly efficient CIGS solar cells. The effect of light-soaking on the heterojunction property and the stability of device performance are discussed.

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