4.6 Article

Planar D-D-π-A Organic Sensitizers for Thin-Film Photoanodes

期刊

ACS ENERGY LETTERS
卷 2, 期 8, 页码 1810-1817

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00438

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2016R1A2B4009239, 2016R1A2B3007119, 2016R1A4A1011451]
  2. Technology Development Program to Solve Climate Changes of the NRF - Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2016M1A2A2940910]
  3. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning [20143030011560]
  4. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20143030011560] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2B4009239, 2016R1A2B3007119] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The planarity of an organic sensitizer is one of the most crucial factors for determining molar absorptivity and intramolecular charge transfer (ICT). The photovoltaic performance of dye-sensitized solar cells dramatically changed depending on the planarity of the donor, although all dyes exhibited similar extinction coefficients, electrochemical characteristics, as well as the amount of loaded dye. The power conversion efficiency (PCE) of planar donor dyes was 3 times greater than that of twisted donor dyes because of more rapid ICT. In addition, RK-3 dye, characterized by additional donor groups on an indoline unit, exhibited broad light-harvesting ability with higher performance as compared to those observed for planar dyes with a single donor attached to the thin-film photoanode (1.8 mu m transparent + 2.5 mu m scattering film). The champion cell of RK-3 exhibited a PCE of 10.3% when the thickness of the active film increased to 3.5 mu m, as well as when an antireflection layer was applied with an iodine-based electrolyte.

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