Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T21:59:02.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Investigation of the Energy Levels within a Common Perovskite Solar Cell Device and a Comparison of DC/AC Surface Photovoltage Spectroscopy Kelvin Probe Measurements of Different MAPBI3 Perovskite Solar Cell Device Structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2017

Susanna E. Challinger ,
Iain D. Baikie ,
Jonathon R. Harwell ,
Graham A. Turnbull  and
Ifor D.W. Samuel
Susanna E. Challinger*
Affiliation:
KP Technology Ltd, Wick, Caithness, United Kingdom. Organic Semiconductor Centre, SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
Iain D. Baikie
Affiliation:
KP Technology Ltd, Wick, Caithness, United Kingdom.
Jonathon R. Harwell
Affiliation:
Organic Semiconductor Centre, SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
Graham A. Turnbull
Affiliation:
Organic Semiconductor Centre, SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
Ifor D.W. Samuel
Affiliation:
Organic Semiconductor Centre, SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
*
*(Email: susanna@kptechnology.ltd.uk)
Get access

Abstract

We present a study of the energy levels in a FTO/TiO2/CH3NH3PbI3/Spiro solar cell device. The measurements are performed using a novel ambient pressure photoemission (APS) technique alongside Contact Potential Difference data from a Kelvin Probe. The Perovskite Solar Cell energy band diagram is demonstrated for the device in dark conditions and under illumination from a 150W Quartz Tungsten Halogen lamp. This approach provides useful information on the interaction between the different materials in this solar cell device. Additionally, non-destructive macroscopic DC and AC Surface Photovoltage Spectroscopy (SPS) studies are demonstrated of different MAPBI3 device structures to give an indication of overall device performance. AC-SPS measurements, previously used on traditional semiconductors to study the mobility, are used in this case to characterise the ability of a perovskite solar cell device to respond rapidly to chopped light. Two different device structures studied showed very different characteristics: Sample A (without TiO2): (ITO/PEDOT:PSS/polyTPD/CH3NH3PbI3/PCBM) had ∼4 times the magnitude of AC-SPS response compared to Sample B (including TiO2): (ITO/TiO2/ CH3NH3PbI3/Spiro). This demonstrates that the carrier speed characteristics of device architecture A is superior to device architecture B. The TiO2 layer has been associated with carrier trapping which is illustrated in this example. However, the DC-SPV performance of sample B is ∼5 times greater than that of sample A. The band gap of the MAPBI3 layer was determined through DC-SPS (1.57 ± 0.07 eV), Voc of the devices measured and qualitative observations made of interface trapping by DC light pulsing. The combination of these (APS, KP, AC/DC-SPV/SPS) techniques offers a more general method for measuring the energy level alignments and performance of Organic and Hybrid Solar Cell Devices.

Keywords

organicelectronic structureorganometallic
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 2 , Issue 21-22: Energy and Sustainability , 2017 , pp. 1195 - 1201
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Wang, D., Wright, M., Elumalai, N. K. and Uddin, A., Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 147, 255–275 (2016).Google Scholar
Kojima, A., Teshima, K., Shirai, Y. and Miyasaka, T., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131(17), 6050–6051 (2009).Google Scholar
Park, N. G., Mater. Today 18(2), 65–72 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaith, H. J. and Gratzel, M., Adv. Mater. 19(21), 3643–3647 (2007).Google Scholar
Chandiran, A. K., Abdi-Jalebi, M., Nazeeruddin, M. K. and Gratzel, M., ACS Nano 8(3), 2261–2268 (2014).Google Scholar
Malinkiewicz, O., Yella, A., Lee, Y. H., Espallargas, G. M., Graetzel, M., Nazeeruddin, M. K. and Bolink, H. J., Nat. Photonics 8(2), 128–132 (2014).Google Scholar
Kronik, L. and Shapira, Y., Surf. Sci. Rep. 37 (1-5), 1–206 (1999).Google Scholar
Barnea-Nehoshtan, L., Kirmayer, S., Edri, E., Hodes, G. and Cahen, D., J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 5(14), 2408–2413 (2014).Google Scholar
Lee, Y. J., Wang, J. and Hsu, J. W. P., Appl. Phys. Lett. 103(17), 5 (2013).Google Scholar
Harwell, J. R., Baikie, T. K., Baikie, I. D., Payne, J. L., Ni, C., Irvine, J. T. S., Turnbull, G. A. and Samuel, I. D. W., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18(29), 19738–19745 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baikie, I. D., Grain, A. C., Sutherland, J. and Law, J., Appl. Surf. Sci. 323, 45–53 (2014).Google Scholar
Kong, X. H., Rowe, J. E. and Nemanich, R. J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 26(4), 1461–1465 (2008).Google Scholar
Kulkarni, S. A., Baikie, T., Boix, P. P., Yantara, N., Mathews, N. and Mhaisalkar, S., J. Mater. Chem. A 2(24), 9221–9225 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroder, D. K., Measurement Science and Technology 12(3), R16 (2001).Google Scholar