Comparing Methods of Characterizing Energetic Disorder in Organic Solar Cells

The energetic disorder has been known for decades to limit the performance of structurally disordered semiconductors such as amorphous silicon and organic semiconductors. However, in the past years, high‐performance organic solar cells have emerged showing a continuously reduced amount of energetic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Advanced energy materials 2023-04, Vol.13 (15), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Hartnagel, Paula, Ravishankar, Sandheep, Klingebiel, Benjamin, Thimm, Oliver, Kirchartz, Thomas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 15
container_start_page
container_title Advanced energy materials
container_volume 13
creator Hartnagel, Paula
Ravishankar, Sandheep
Klingebiel, Benjamin
Thimm, Oliver
Kirchartz, Thomas
description The energetic disorder has been known for decades to limit the performance of structurally disordered semiconductors such as amorphous silicon and organic semiconductors. However, in the past years, high‐performance organic solar cells have emerged showing a continuously reduced amount of energetic disorder. While searching for future high‐efficiency material systems, it is therefore important to correctly characterize this energetic disorder. While there are several techniques in the literature, the most common approaches to probe the density of defect states are using optical excitation as in external quantum efficiency measurements, or sequential filling of the tail states by applying an external voltage as in admittance spectroscopy. A metanalysis of available literature, as well as the experiments using four characterization techniques on two material systems, reveal that electrical, voltage‐dependent measurements frequently yield higher values of energetic disorder than optical measurements. With drift‐diffusion simulations, it is demonstrated that the approaches probe different energy ranges of the subband‐gap density of states. The limitations of the techniques are further explored and it is found that extraction of information from a capacitance‐voltage curve can be inhibited by internal series resistance. Thereby, the discrepancies between measurement techniques with sensitivity to different energy ranges and electronic parameters are explained. To minimize energetic disorder in organic solar cells for higher efficiencies, accurate characterization is key. However, both the literature research and experimental results show that the two most common approaches to probing the energetic disorder, optical and electrical measurements, yield different results. With drift‐diffusion simulations, the differences between the characterization techniques with their advantages but also limitations are explored.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/aenm.202300329
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2803105400</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2803105400</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3579-67c0712c08588a1bbc9f970d91af8bbca7da0fe29ef0c393702ec899dbc8c6e43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EElXpyhyJOeVsp4k9VqF8SC0dgNlynXPrKo2LnQqVX0-iojJyy3297530EHJLYUwB2L3GZjdmwDgAZ_KCDGhOszQXGVyea86uySjGLXSRSQqcD8ii9Lu9Dq5ZJwtsN76KibdJudFBmxaD--43swbDGltnkgcXfagwJK5JlmGtm2725msdkhLrOt6QK6vriKPfPCQfj7P38jmdL59eyuk8NXxSyDQvDBSUGRATITRdrYy0soBKUm1F1-mi0mCRSbRguOQFMDRCymplhMkx40Nyd7q7D_7zgLFVW38ITfdSMQGcwiTrOAzJ-KQywccY0Kp9cDsdjoqC6qmpnpo6U-sM8mT4cjUe_1Gr6ex18ef9Ac_IcJ8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2803105400</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing Methods of Characterizing Energetic Disorder in Organic Solar Cells</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Hartnagel, Paula ; Ravishankar, Sandheep ; Klingebiel, Benjamin ; Thimm, Oliver ; Kirchartz, Thomas</creator><creatorcontrib>Hartnagel, Paula ; Ravishankar, Sandheep ; Klingebiel, Benjamin ; Thimm, Oliver ; Kirchartz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><description>The energetic disorder has been known for decades to limit the performance of structurally disordered semiconductors such as amorphous silicon and organic semiconductors. However, in the past years, high‐performance organic solar cells have emerged showing a continuously reduced amount of energetic disorder. While searching for future high‐efficiency material systems, it is therefore important to correctly characterize this energetic disorder. While there are several techniques in the literature, the most common approaches to probe the density of defect states are using optical excitation as in external quantum efficiency measurements, or sequential filling of the tail states by applying an external voltage as in admittance spectroscopy. A metanalysis of available literature, as well as the experiments using four characterization techniques on two material systems, reveal that electrical, voltage‐dependent measurements frequently yield higher values of energetic disorder than optical measurements. With drift‐diffusion simulations, it is demonstrated that the approaches probe different energy ranges of the subband‐gap density of states. The limitations of the techniques are further explored and it is found that extraction of information from a capacitance‐voltage curve can be inhibited by internal series resistance. Thereby, the discrepancies between measurement techniques with sensitivity to different energy ranges and electronic parameters are explained. To minimize energetic disorder in organic solar cells for higher efficiencies, accurate characterization is key. However, both the literature research and experimental results show that the two most common approaches to probing the energetic disorder, optical and electrical measurements, yield different results. With drift‐diffusion simulations, the differences between the characterization techniques with their advantages but also limitations are explored.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1614-6832</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-6840</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202300329</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Weinheim: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Amorphous semiconductors ; Amorphous silicon ; Electric potential ; impedance spectroscopy ; Measurement techniques ; Optical measurement ; organic photovoltaics ; Organic semiconductors ; Parameter sensitivity ; Photovoltaic cells ; Quantum efficiency ; Semiconductors ; shallow defects ; Solar cells ; tail states ; Urbach energy ; Voltage</subject><ispartof>Advanced energy materials, 2023-04, Vol.13 (15), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3579-67c0712c08588a1bbc9f970d91af8bbca7da0fe29ef0c393702ec899dbc8c6e43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3579-67c0712c08588a1bbc9f970d91af8bbca7da0fe29ef0c393702ec899dbc8c6e43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0018-8168 ; 0000-0002-6954-8213</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Faenm.202300329$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Faenm.202300329$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hartnagel, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravishankar, Sandheep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klingebiel, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thimm, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirchartz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing Methods of Characterizing Energetic Disorder in Organic Solar Cells</title><title>Advanced energy materials</title><description>The energetic disorder has been known for decades to limit the performance of structurally disordered semiconductors such as amorphous silicon and organic semiconductors. However, in the past years, high‐performance organic solar cells have emerged showing a continuously reduced amount of energetic disorder. While searching for future high‐efficiency material systems, it is therefore important to correctly characterize this energetic disorder. While there are several techniques in the literature, the most common approaches to probe the density of defect states are using optical excitation as in external quantum efficiency measurements, or sequential filling of the tail states by applying an external voltage as in admittance spectroscopy. A metanalysis of available literature, as well as the experiments using four characterization techniques on two material systems, reveal that electrical, voltage‐dependent measurements frequently yield higher values of energetic disorder than optical measurements. With drift‐diffusion simulations, it is demonstrated that the approaches probe different energy ranges of the subband‐gap density of states. The limitations of the techniques are further explored and it is found that extraction of information from a capacitance‐voltage curve can be inhibited by internal series resistance. Thereby, the discrepancies between measurement techniques with sensitivity to different energy ranges and electronic parameters are explained. To minimize energetic disorder in organic solar cells for higher efficiencies, accurate characterization is key. However, both the literature research and experimental results show that the two most common approaches to probing the energetic disorder, optical and electrical measurements, yield different results. With drift‐diffusion simulations, the differences between the characterization techniques with their advantages but also limitations are explored.</description><subject>Amorphous semiconductors</subject><subject>Amorphous silicon</subject><subject>Electric potential</subject><subject>impedance spectroscopy</subject><subject>Measurement techniques</subject><subject>Optical measurement</subject><subject>organic photovoltaics</subject><subject>Organic semiconductors</subject><subject>Parameter sensitivity</subject><subject>Photovoltaic cells</subject><subject>Quantum efficiency</subject><subject>Semiconductors</subject><subject>shallow defects</subject><subject>Solar cells</subject><subject>tail states</subject><subject>Urbach energy</subject><subject>Voltage</subject><issn>1614-6832</issn><issn>1614-6840</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EElXpyhyJOeVsp4k9VqF8SC0dgNlynXPrKo2LnQqVX0-iojJyy3297530EHJLYUwB2L3GZjdmwDgAZ_KCDGhOszQXGVyea86uySjGLXSRSQqcD8ii9Lu9Dq5ZJwtsN76KibdJudFBmxaD--43swbDGltnkgcXfagwJK5JlmGtm2725msdkhLrOt6QK6vriKPfPCQfj7P38jmdL59eyuk8NXxSyDQvDBSUGRATITRdrYy0soBKUm1F1-mi0mCRSbRguOQFMDRCymplhMkx40Nyd7q7D_7zgLFVW38ITfdSMQGcwiTrOAzJ-KQywccY0Kp9cDsdjoqC6qmpnpo6U-sM8mT4cjUe_1Gr6ex18ef9Ac_IcJ8</recordid><startdate>20230401</startdate><enddate>20230401</enddate><creator>Hartnagel, Paula</creator><creator>Ravishankar, Sandheep</creator><creator>Klingebiel, Benjamin</creator><creator>Thimm, Oliver</creator><creator>Kirchartz, Thomas</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-8168</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6954-8213</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230401</creationdate><title>Comparing Methods of Characterizing Energetic Disorder in Organic Solar Cells</title><author>Hartnagel, Paula ; Ravishankar, Sandheep ; Klingebiel, Benjamin ; Thimm, Oliver ; Kirchartz, Thomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3579-67c0712c08588a1bbc9f970d91af8bbca7da0fe29ef0c393702ec899dbc8c6e43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Amorphous semiconductors</topic><topic>Amorphous silicon</topic><topic>Electric potential</topic><topic>impedance spectroscopy</topic><topic>Measurement techniques</topic><topic>Optical measurement</topic><topic>organic photovoltaics</topic><topic>Organic semiconductors</topic><topic>Parameter sensitivity</topic><topic>Photovoltaic cells</topic><topic>Quantum efficiency</topic><topic>Semiconductors</topic><topic>shallow defects</topic><topic>Solar cells</topic><topic>tail states</topic><topic>Urbach energy</topic><topic>Voltage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hartnagel, Paula</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravishankar, Sandheep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klingebiel, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thimm, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirchartz, Thomas</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Advanced energy materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hartnagel, Paula</au><au>Ravishankar, Sandheep</au><au>Klingebiel, Benjamin</au><au>Thimm, Oliver</au><au>Kirchartz, Thomas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing Methods of Characterizing Energetic Disorder in Organic Solar Cells</atitle><jtitle>Advanced energy materials</jtitle><date>2023-04-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>15</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1614-6832</issn><eissn>1614-6840</eissn><abstract>The energetic disorder has been known for decades to limit the performance of structurally disordered semiconductors such as amorphous silicon and organic semiconductors. However, in the past years, high‐performance organic solar cells have emerged showing a continuously reduced amount of energetic disorder. While searching for future high‐efficiency material systems, it is therefore important to correctly characterize this energetic disorder. While there are several techniques in the literature, the most common approaches to probe the density of defect states are using optical excitation as in external quantum efficiency measurements, or sequential filling of the tail states by applying an external voltage as in admittance spectroscopy. A metanalysis of available literature, as well as the experiments using four characterization techniques on two material systems, reveal that electrical, voltage‐dependent measurements frequently yield higher values of energetic disorder than optical measurements. With drift‐diffusion simulations, it is demonstrated that the approaches probe different energy ranges of the subband‐gap density of states. The limitations of the techniques are further explored and it is found that extraction of information from a capacitance‐voltage curve can be inhibited by internal series resistance. Thereby, the discrepancies between measurement techniques with sensitivity to different energy ranges and electronic parameters are explained. To minimize energetic disorder in organic solar cells for higher efficiencies, accurate characterization is key. However, both the literature research and experimental results show that the two most common approaches to probing the energetic disorder, optical and electrical measurements, yield different results. With drift‐diffusion simulations, the differences between the characterization techniques with their advantages but also limitations are explored.</abstract><cop>Weinheim</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/aenm.202300329</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-8168</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6954-8213</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1614-6832
ispartof Advanced energy materials, 2023-04, Vol.13 (15), p.n/a
issn 1614-6832
1614-6840
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2803105400
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Amorphous semiconductors
Amorphous silicon
Electric potential
impedance spectroscopy
Measurement techniques
Optical measurement
organic photovoltaics
Organic semiconductors
Parameter sensitivity
Photovoltaic cells
Quantum efficiency
Semiconductors
shallow defects
Solar cells
tail states
Urbach energy
Voltage
title Comparing Methods of Characterizing Energetic Disorder in Organic Solar Cells
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A42%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20Methods%20of%20Characterizing%20Energetic%20Disorder%20in%20Organic%20Solar%20Cells&rft.jtitle=Advanced%20energy%20materials&rft.au=Hartnagel,%20Paula&rft.date=2023-04-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=15&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1614-6832&rft.eissn=1614-6840&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/aenm.202300329&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2803105400%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2803105400&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true