4.6 Article

Faster dye-adsorption of dye-sensitized solar cells by applying an electric field

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 55, 期 13, 页码 4120-4123

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2010.02.076

关键词

Dye-sensitized solar cells; Electric field effect; Dye-adsorption; Absorbance spectra; Photovoltaic performance

资金

  1. Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD) [KRF-2007D00283]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [과C6B1614] 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

In the conventional dye-adsorption process of dye-sensitized solar cells (DSCs). the FTO/TiO2 photo electrode is soaked in the dye solution, allowing dye molecules to be adsorbed onto the TiO2 surface by covalent bonds between dye molecules and TiO2 particles. This process requires a very long time, ranging from several hours to several days. Therefore, it is necessary to take other steps for faster dye-adsorption. We propose that more dye molecules will be adsorbed onto the TiO2 surface during the early period of the dye-adsorption process if ionized dye molecules are accelerated toward the TiO2 layer. To achieve ionization, an electric field was applied above and below the soaked photo electrode to accelerate the dye molecules, which resulted in faster dye-adsorption. To determine if faster dye-adsorption was caused by the electric field during the dye-adsorption process, the effect in terms of photovoltaic performance, the adsorption temperature, and the absorbance spectra were examined. The result showed that DSCs with an electric field applied during the dye-adsorption process reached the maximum current in 5 h, while conventional DSCs required 12 h. Furthermore, this effect was confirmed by reversing the electric field which produced a cell with worse performance compared to a conventional cell. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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