Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2016
DOI: 10.1002/admi.201600446
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seeing Down to the Bottom: Nondestructive Inspection of All‐Polymer Solar Cells by Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To examine the energy level alignment at the D/A heterojunction, we used Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) to map the surface potential (Figure S6, Supporting Information). [48,49] The experimental setups are schemed in Figure 1c,d. For the control sample, scanning the PBDB-T surface produces an average contact potential of 734 mV, which is higher than the value of 526 mV on the IT-M surface (Figure 1c).…”
Section: Heterojunction Doping Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To examine the energy level alignment at the D/A heterojunction, we used Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) to map the surface potential (Figure S6, Supporting Information). [48,49] The experimental setups are schemed in Figure 1c,d. For the control sample, scanning the PBDB-T surface produces an average contact potential of 734 mV, which is higher than the value of 526 mV on the IT-M surface (Figure 1c).…”
Section: Heterojunction Doping Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The energetics was also estimated by simulations, [33][34][35][36] however these rely on reliable input parameters and do not substitute direct experimental measurements. Scanning Kelvin Probe Microscopy has been also applied for the study of energetic alignment in organic photovoltaic systems, [37][38][39] however this method suffers from limitations due to tip size convolution effects, complex sample preparation and doesn't offer information about the density of states (DOS) of the materials. Among the various experimental techniques offering information about the energy levels of materials, it is widely accepted that the most accurate and reliable method is photoemission spectroscopy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The slope in the edge interface may be caused by the inevitable average effect from the atomic force microscope (AFM) cantilever during the measurement. In our KPFM setup, the measured CPD is opposite to the surface potential . Therefore, a surface potential decrease ψ = −66.7 mV appears in the irradiated area.…”
mentioning
confidence: 89%