HCl and Br2-MeOH etching of Cu2ZnSnSe4 polycrystalline absorbers

Mousel, Marina; Redinger, Alex; Djemour, Rabie; Arasimowicz, Monika; Valle, Nathalie; Dale, Phillip J.; Siebentritt, Susanne

doi:10.1016/j.tsf.2012.12.095

Cited by 68 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That the ternary phase can occur at the surface of Cu-poor, Zn-rich material, in contradiction to the phase diagram, has been recently demonstrated [49]. It was also shown that this phase can be etched from the surface by a bromine etch [49].…”

Section: Comparison With the Phase Diagrammentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are kesterite solar cells not 20% efficient?

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although kesterite solar cells show the same range of band gaps as the related chalcopyrites, their efficiencies have so far reached only 10%, compared to 20% for the chalcopyrites. A review of the present literature indicates that several non-ideal recombination channels pose the main problem: (i) recombination at the interface between the kesterite and the CdS buffer. This is very likely due to an unfavourable clifflike band alignment between the absorber and the buffer. However, for pure selenide absorbers, this recombination path is not dominating, which could be due to a spike-like band alignment at the absorber-buffer interface. (ii) A second major recombination becomes obvious in a photoluminescence maximum well below the band gap, even in record efficiency absorbers. This is either due to a very high density of defects, comparable to the density of states in the band, or to stannite inclusions. In view of the phase diagram, secondary phases are not likely the source of the low energy emission.Only in sulphide kesterite a non-stoichiometric SnS phase could also cause this low energy radiative recombination.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With the Phase Diagrammentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are kesterite solar cells not 20% efficient?

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have shown previously that a Cu-Sn-Se phase at the surface of the absorber is detrimental to the solar cell. [ 11 ] Figure 1 b compares the secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) profi les of a standard Cu-poor precursor and a Cu-rich precursor. Cu is enriched at the Cu-rich precursor's surface, whereas no Cu enrichment is detected in the Cu-poor precursor.…”

Section: Doi: 101002/aenm201300543mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The power conversion effi ciency of our best solar cell grown as precursor under Cu-poor conditions with no additional surface treatment, except for KCN etching before the buffer layer deposition, did not exceed 4.6%, as was reported previously. [ 11 ] The effi ciency of solar cells issuing from the CAPRI process is higher without surface treatment after the annealing process (except for a short KCN etch just before the buffer deposition). The question arises if the improvement is due to the Cu-rich nature of the precursors in the CAPRI process or simply due to the etching of the precursors.…”

Section: Doi: 101002/aenm201300543mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cu‐Rich Precursors Improve Kesterite Solar Cells

Mousel

Schwarz

Djemour

et al. 2013

Advanced Energy Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondary phases that were observed are predominantly ZnS(e) [9e12], Cu x S(e) [13,14], Cu 2 SnS(e) 3 [15,16], and SnS(e) x [9,14]. In general, they are considered to be detrimental to the cell's performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%