4.6 Article

Formation of Organic Alloys in Ternary-Blend Solar Cells with Two Acceptors Having Energy Level Offsets Exceeding 0.4 eV

期刊

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
卷 2, 期 9, 页码 2149-2156

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00620

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF & NIH/NIGMS via NSF Award [DMR-1332208]
  2. National Science Foundation [ECCS-1549619, CMMI-1537011]
  3. Princeton Center for Complex Materials funded under NSF-MRSEC [DMR-1420541]
  4. National Science Foundation (CBET Energy for Sustainability) [CBET-1436875]
  5. Directorate For Engineering
  6. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1536895, 1537011] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  8. Directorate For Engineering [1436875] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Div Of Electrical, Commun & Cyber Sys
  10. Directorate For Engineering [1549619] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies demonstrated that with proper selection of chemically compatible constituents the open-circuit voltage (V-oc) of ternary-blend solar cells can be tuned across the composition window of the active layer. In this study, we probed the limit of the offset between the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy levels of the two acceptors in ternary blends containing one donor and two acceptors. We demonstrate, for the first time, that ternary-blend active layers with two acceptors having an energy-level difference between their LUMO levels exceeding 0.4 eV can still result in solar cells exhibiting composition dependent open-circuit voltage (V-oc). Our results suggest strong electronic interactions between the acceptors, with the electron wave function delocalized over multiple molecules. These findings have broadened the library of possible candidates for active layers of ternary-blend solar cells with tunable V-oc, and established guidelines for the design of next-generation materials for efficient performance of such 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