ENGINEERING ORGANIC SOLAR CELLS USING A NOVEL TRI-LAYER ARCHITECTURE Michael Crump 2008–2009.

ENGINEERING ORGANIC SOLAR CELLS USING A NOVEL TRI-LAYER ARCHITECTURE

Michael Crump2008–2009

ORGANIC SOLAR CELLS

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/solarprint2.jpg

SOLAR CELL STRUCTURE STUDIED BY PEUMANS et al. (2003)

[1500 Å]

[200 Å]

[400 Å]

[100 Å]

[500 Å]

OSC EXPERIMENTAL ARCHITECTURE 1

[1500 Å]

[200 Å]

[10–100 Å]

[400 Å]

[100 Å]

[500 Å]

KUSHTO et al. (2005) ARCHITECTURE

[1500 Å]

[200 Å]

[400 Å]

[100 Å]

[500 Å]

NPD

OSC EXPERIMENTAL ARCHITECTURE 1

[1500 Å]

[200 Å]

[10–100 Å]

[400 Å]

[100 Å]

[500 Å]

NPD (donor)

ENERGY GRAPH

donorCuPc

(Donor) donorC60

(Acceptor)

RATIONALE FOR USING NPD(RAND et al. 2005)

donorCuPc (Donor)

donorC60 (Acceptor)

donorNPD (Donor)

THERMAL EVAPORATION CHAMBER

FABRICATING BILAYERORGANIC SOLAR CELLS Pressure Gauge

0 atm 1 atm

FABRICATING ORGANIC SOLAR CELLS

TESTING ORGANIC SOLAR CELLS

Computer

Light -0.5 0.0 0.5-5

0

5

10

15

Cu

rre

nt D

en

sity

(m

A/c

m^2

)Voltage (V)

Dark 71.72 mW/cm^2

JSC

VOC

VMAX

JMAX

JMAX

* VMAX

JSC

* VOC

FF =

JMAX x VMAX

JSC x VOC

Solar Cell Current

Diode Current

Photocurrent

DETERMINING EFFICIENCY

Efficiency = Voltage x Current x Fill Factor

NPD RESULTS

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Effic

ien

cy (

%)

NPD Thickness (Angstroms)

Efficiency vs. NPD thickness

control

NPD RESULTS

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

Re

sp

on

siv

ity (

A/W

)

NPD Thickness (Angstroms)

Current vs. NPD thickness Fill Factor vs. NPD Thickness

control control

NPD RESULTS

0 20 40 60 80 1000.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Vo

c (V

)

NPD Thickness (Angstroms)

Voltage vs. NPD thickness

control

NPD ENERGY GRAPH

donorCuPc (Donor)

donorC60 (Acceptor)

donorNPD

(Donor)

OSC EXPERIMENTAL ARCHITECTURE 2

[1500 Å]

[200 Å]

[10–100 Å]

[400 Å]

[100 Å]

[500 Å]

HOLMES et al. (2008) ARCHITECTURE

[1500 Å]

[200 Å]

[400 Å]

[100 Å]

[500 Å]

PtOEP

RATIONALE FOR USING PTOEP

donorCuPc (Donor)

donorC60 (Acceptor)

donorPtOEP (Donor)

PTOEP RESULTS

0 20 40 60 80 1000.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Effic

ien

cy (

%)

PtOEP Thickness (Angstroms)

Efficiency vs. PtOEP Thickness

control

PTOEP RESULTS

0 20 40 60 80 100

0.0125

0.0150

0.0175

0.0200

0.0225

0.0250

0.0275

Re

spo

nsi

vity

(A

/W)

PtOEP Thickness (Angstroms)

Current vs. PtOEP Thickness Fill Factor vs. PtOEP Thickness

control control

PTOEP RESULTS

0 20 40 60 80 1000.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Vo

c (V

)

PtOEP Thickness (Angstroms)

Voltage vs. PtOEP Thickness

control

YANG et al. (2008)

donorDonor donorAcceptordonorCuPc (Donor)

donorC60 (Acceptor)

donorPtOEP (Donor)

CONCLUSIONS

• Voltage depends only on energy gap between electron donor and electron acceptor (Yang)

• Low current

FUTURE WORK

• Dope NPD or PtOEP (Maennig et al. (2004))• Find optimal balance between electron donor

and NPD

FUTURE WORKPressure Gauge

0 atm 1 atm

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS• Dr. Russell Holmes• University of Minnesota• Kai-Yuan Cheng, Grant Lodden, Wade Luhman, and Richa

Pandey• Dr. Marla Feller and Ms. Lois Fruen• The Breck Research Team

http://www.cems.umn.edu/about/people/facdetail.php?

cemsid=20785

ENGINEERING ORGANIC SOLAR CELLS USING A NOVEL TRI-LAYER ARCHITECTURE

Michael Crump2008–2009

RATIONALE FOR USING NPD(RAND et al. 2005)

donorCuPc (Donor)

donorC60 (Acceptor)

donorNPD (Donor)

DETERMINING EFFICIENCY

Efficiency = Voltage x Current x Fill Factor