4.6 Article

Film-through large perovskite grains formation via a combination of sequential thermal and solvent treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 4, 期 22, 页码 8554-8561

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6ta03115c

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB352005]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61525503, 61378091, 61405123, 61505123]
  3. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [S2012020011003, 2014A030312008]
  4. Shenzhen Basic Research Project [JCYJ20130329115524512, ZDSYS20140430164957663, KQCX20140509172719305, JCYJ20150525092940976]
  5. Training Plan of Guangdong Province Outstanding Young Teachers in Higher Education Institutions [Yq2013142]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organic-inorganic halide perovskites have recently attracted strong research interest for fabrication of high-performance, low-cost photovoltaic devices. Recently, we reported a highly reproducible procedure to fabricate high-performance organic-inorganic halide perovskite solar cells. This procedure, based on a one-step, solvent-induced, fast deposition-crystallization method, involves the use of sec-butyl alcohol as a new solvent to induce the CH3NH3PbI3 fast crystallization deposition. In the present study, we propose a reproducible fabrication method to prepare both flat and large-grain perovskite film by adding a pre-annealing step to strengthen the perovskite nucleation, aiming to facilitate the excess CH3NH3I and solvent removal in the sec-butyl alcohol soaking process, in which all films with thickness between 420 nm and 1 mu m performed uniformly. The best performing planar device obtained with this procedure had an efficiency of 17.2% under AM 1.5G illumination and an average power conversion efficiency of 16.2 +/- 0.5%. We also analyzed the efficiency of halide perovskite planar solar cells as a function of the perovskite film thickness; the efficiency dropped only slightly to 15.7% when the perovskite film thickness was increased to 1 mu m.

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

4.6
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