4.7 Article

Intrinsic Defect Limit to the Electrical Conductivity and a Two-Step p-Type Doping Strategy for Overcoming the Efficiency Bottleneck of Sb2S3-Based Solar Cells

期刊

SOLAR RRL
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/solr.201900503

关键词

first principles; O-doping; photovoltaic; point defects; Sb2S3 solar cells

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61722402, 61574059, 91833302]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0700700]
  3. Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation [161060]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  5. CC of ECNU
  6. [19XD1421300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The photovoltaic efficiency increase in Sb2S3-based solar cells has stagnated for 5 years since the highest efficiency of 7.5% was achieved in 2014. One important bottleneck is the high electrical resistivity of Sb2S3. The first-principle calculations reveal that the high-resistivity results from the compensation between the intrinsic donor V-S and acceptors V-Sb, Sb-S, and S-Sb which have comparably high concentration (low formation energy). The compensation also limits the improvement of conductivity through direct extrinsic doping. Further calculations of O dopants show that O-S has low formation energy, so the dominant intrinsic donor V-S can be passivated by O and thus the p-type doping limit imposed by V-S can be overcome. Meanwhile, other p-type limiting and recombination-center donor defects can be suppressed under the S-rich condition, which explains why the highest efficiency is achieved in O-doped Sb2S3 after sulfurization. Given the unexpected beneficial effects of O doping and sulfurization, a two-step doping strategy is proposed for overcoming the efficiency bottleneck: 1) use O to passivate the V-S and S-rich condition to suppress other detrimental defects, making p-type doping feasible and minority carrier lifetime long; 2) introduce other p-type dopants to increase hole carrier concentration.

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