4.6 Article

Close-loop recycling of perovskite solar cells through dissolution-recrystallization of perovskite by butylamine

期刊

CELL REPORTS PHYSICAL SCIENCE
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.xcrp.2021.100341

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61775091]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shenzhen Innovation Committee [JCYJ20180504165851864]
  3. Shenzhen Key Laboratory Project [ZDSYS201602261933302]
  4. Science and Technology Development Fund from Macau SAR [199/2017/A3, 0125/2018/A3, 0038/2019/A1, 0071/2019/AMJ]
  5. University of Macau [MYRG2017-00149-FST, MYRG2019-00103-IAPME]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a closed-loop recycling strategy to collect and regenerate the key materials needed for organic-inorganic lead halide perovskite solar cells, achieving a total recycling yield of lead exceeding 98.9%. The regenerated solar cells exhibit performance equivalent to fresh devices, with nearly 18% conversion efficiency, moving towards commercialization through effective recycling and refabrication approaches.
Organic-inorganic lead halide perovskite solar cells (PSCs) have achieved impressive progress in both conversion efficiency and stability. However, the leakage risk of toxic lead in the fabrication and service of PSCs hinders their commercialization; hence, the manage. ment of lead is imperative, Here, we report a close-loop recycling strategy to collect the key materials involved in devices with butylamine (BA), even regenerating solar cells with recycled materials including perovskite absorbers and NiOx-coated ITO glass substrates. The regenerated devices show performance equivalent to that of fresh ones and nearly 18% PCE for the champions. The total recycling yield of lead is more than 98.9%. The recycling can be attributed to the unique interaction between lead halides and BA. Our strategy could move PSCs toward commercialization by effective close-loop recycling and refabrication of whole PSC devices.

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