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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Advanced energy materials 2023-04, Vol.13 (15), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & 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 |