A Comparison of the Structure and Properties of Opaque and Semi-Transparent NIP/PIN-Type Scalable Perovskite Solar Cells

Abstract

For over a decade, single-junction perovskite solar cells (PSCs) have experienced an unprecedent increase in efficiencies and even offer opportunities to surpass the Shockley–Queisser limit in multijunction configuration. There is consequently an intense need for easily processable semi-transparent PSCs as a basis of affordable tandems. The current study reports the comparison of negative-intrinsic-positive (NIP) and positive-intrinsic-negative (PIN) architectures based on CH3NH3PbI3{Cl}-based perovskite. Both devices could be prepared with the same N-type (SnO2 nanoparticles) and P-type (poly-triarylamine (PTAA) polymer) materials. Each layer (except for electrodes) was deposited using solvent-based low temperature processes, contrasting with other literature studies, especially SnO2 for PIN-type purposes. A thorough experimental comparison of the two architectures reveals rather similar optical and structural properties for perovskites, whether deposited on an N- or P-type underlayer, with also comparable efficiencies in the final devices. A compatible deposition process for sputtered indium tin oxide (ITO) as a semi-transparent electrode was then performed for both architectures. Upon varying the illuminated devices’ side, the semi-transparent cells exhibited different photocurrent behaviors, the magnitude of which depended on the device’s architecture. In conclusion, despite slightly better efficiencies for the semi-transparent NIP-type devices, the semi-transparent PIN-type counterparts also appear to be optically attractive for (two-terminal) tandem applications.

The impact of fluorine atoms on a triphenylamine-based dopant-free hole-selective layer for perovskite solar cells

“…This former is called "inverted architecture" (positive-intrinsic-negative, p-i-n), while the one is termed as "standard architecture" (negative-intrinsic-positive, n-i-p). 9 The effect of HTLs on hole extraction and stability is fundamental. [10][11][12] However, in n-i-p based PSCs HTLs suffer from low electrical conductivity and hole mobility of p-type organic semiconductors, which is being addressed by the use of dopants.…”

A Review of Integrated Systems Based on Perovskite Solar Cells and Energy Storage Units: Fundamental, Progresses, Challenges, and Perspectives

“…[ 22 ] In an inverted (p–i–n) structure, typical feature includes low‐temperature processing, negligible hysteresis behavior and optically attractive for (two/four‐terminal) tandem applications. [ 23 ] However, further attempts should be made to understand the difference between mesoscopic inverted structure and planar inverted structure.…”

Holistic Approach toward a Damage-Less Sputtered Indium Tin Oxide Barrier Layer for High-Stability Inverted Perovskite Solar Cells and Modules

“…Furthermore, a metal electrode on top of ITO could be used as a back-reflector to generate more current in the device. Previously many reports have shown to employ sputtered ITO as a top electrode to increase the overall stability of the device. , , However, the PCEs of ITO-sputtered devices are relatively lower when compared to their reference devices. − In fact, few articles demonstrate the incorporation of ITO for stability but shy away from showing the PCEs . According to the most likely explanation, sputter methods might harm the charge-transport layers and the underlying perovskite layer, limiting device performance. , Sputter damage can affect either the underlying charge-transport layers or the absorber layers, wherein structural changes, such as the dissociation of chemical bonds, can hamper the performance .…”