2015
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201502272
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Engineering Solar Cell Absorbers by Exploring the Band Alignment and Defect Disparity: The Case of Cu‐ and Ag‐Based Kesterite Compounds

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

25
371
1
5

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 308 publications
(402 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
(101 reference statements)
25
371
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the similar oxidation states of Cu and Ag, we propose to tackle the aforementioned problems by alloying CTS with Ag (ACTS). Alloying chalcopyrite materials with Ag has been shown to have several advantageous properties for kesterite and Cu(In,Ga)S 2 (CIGS) absorbers [19]- [26] [(Ag, Cu) 2 ZnSnS 4 (ACZTS) and (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)S 2 (ACIGS)]. Ag replaces Cu in these materials, which increases the band gap [19], [23], [24], [26], decreases the p-type doping [23], as well as reduces intragrain defects and defect states [19]- [21], [23], [26].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on the similar oxidation states of Cu and Ag, we propose to tackle the aforementioned problems by alloying CTS with Ag (ACTS). Alloying chalcopyrite materials with Ag has been shown to have several advantageous properties for kesterite and Cu(In,Ga)S 2 (CIGS) absorbers [19]- [26] [(Ag, Cu) 2 ZnSnS 4 (ACZTS) and (Ag,Cu)(In,Ga)S 2 (ACIGS)]. Ag replaces Cu in these materials, which increases the band gap [19], [23], [24], [26], decreases the p-type doping [23], as well as reduces intragrain defects and defect states [19]- [21], [23], [26].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the band gap of CTS is around 0.93 eV [1]- [5], which is lower than desired for single-junction solar cells. Second, a decrease of p-type doping when alloying with Ag is expected since the formation energy of Ag donor defects is lower than for acceptors for Ag 2 ZnSnS 4 (AZTS) [19], and Ag may occupy Cu vacancies Fig. 1.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Insufficient buffer coverage can also lead to decreased VOC 58 . The position of Fermi level close to the middle of hetero-interface due to Fermi level pinning 52 , the absence of charge inversion at hetero-interface 13,59 , the high density of interface defects 59 and the presence of secondary phases at the interface 61,62 are mentioned as well to explain the VOC deficit compared to CIGSSe solar cells. Concerning pure sulfide CZTS absorber, it has been demonstrated that bandgap narrowing at the front interface reduces VOC 60 .…”
Section: Mapping Of Fundamental Failures In Cd-free Kesterite Solar Cmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) recombination on point defects in the bulk of the absorber is generally said to be responsible for this short lifetime 42 but the influence of band tails, grain boundaries or even interfaces on lifetime is rarely discussed 13 . SRH recombination and tunneling-enhanced recombination 38 , grain boundary recombination 43 , low carrier mobility due to defect scattering 46 or carrier localization 50 and insufficient quasi-Fermi level splitting because of too low carrier density 51 or Fermi level pinning 52 are mentioned as well as responsible for this VOC deficit. Moreover, the absence of internal electric field cannot counterbalance these poor electronic properties 43 .…”
Section: Mapping Of Fundamental Failures In Cd-free Kesterite Solar Cmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, current density falls significantly with the higher thickness of CZTS (Figure 2(a)) because of the reduced optical power absorption in the bottom cell. Thus, higher thickness of [19] 7 [18] 8.5 [17] 7 [16] Band gap (eV) 1.9 [14] 1.45 [18] 0.97 [17] 0.9 [16] Electron affinity (eV) 3.6 [19] 4.1 [24] 4.05 [17,25] 4.05 [13] Electron effective mass (m e /m o ) 0.37 [14,15] 0.18 [13,16] 0.08 [17] 0.07 [13,16] Hole effective mass (m p /m o ) 1.68 [14] 2 [13,16] 0.3 [17] 0.2 [13,16] Electron mobility (cm 2 V À1 s À1 ) 3 0 [26] 40 [21,24] 75 [23] 145 [13,21] Hole mobility (cm 2 V À1 s À1 ) 1 0 [27] 25 [21] 1 [17,23] 35 [13,21] Acceptor concentration (cm…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%