Effects of Masking on Open-Circuit Voltage and Fill Factor in Solar Cells

Summary Guidelines for the correct measurement protocol of novel photovoltaic technologies are becoming more frequent in literature as it is not straightforward how to accurately measure the true efficiency parameters of laboratory solar cells. This is particularly the case for small-area research devices, which are prone to overestimate the short-circuit current density due to edge effects of various types. The common recommended practice is therefore to utilize masks with well-defined apertures. Herein we show both experimentally and theoretically that this common practice, however, leads to erroneous determination of both open-circuit voltage and fill factor, which are figures of merit of equal importance to the short-circuit current density. Although the errors induced in voltage and fill factor by using a mask are generally smaller than what the errors in current can amount to when not using a mask, they are, on the other hand, omnipresent and can be quite well described.

[1]  Thomas Pfadler,et al.  Erroneous efficiency reports harm organic solar cell research , 2014, Nature Photonics.

[2]  Albert Rose,et al.  Double Extraction of Uniformly Generated Electron‐Hole Pairs from Insulators with Noninjecting Contacts , 1971 .

[3]  Christoph J. Brabec,et al.  Simulation of light intensity dependent current characteristics of polymer solar cells , 2004 .

[4]  Henk J. Bolink,et al.  Efficient vacuum deposited p-i-n and n-i-p perovskite solar cells employing doped charge transport layers , 2016 .

[5]  Ripon Bhattacharjee,et al.  How reliable are efficiency measurements of perovskite solar cells? The first inter-comparison, between two accredited and eight non-accredited laboratories , 2017 .

[6]  M. W. Denhoff,et al.  The effect of the front contact sheet resistance on solar cell performance , 2009 .

[7]  Steve Albrecht,et al.  On the Field Dependence of Free Charge Carrier Generation and Recombination in Blends of PCPDTBT/PC70BM: Influence of Solvent Additives. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry letters.

[8]  Henk J. Bolink,et al.  Electrothermal Feedback and Absorption-Induced Open-Circuit-Voltage Turnover in Solar Cells , 2018, Physical Review Applied.

[9]  Henry J. Snaith,et al.  The perils of solar cell efficiency measurements , 2012, Nature Photonics.

[10]  Keith Emery Solar simulators and I-V measurement methods , 1986 .

[11]  Thomas Pfadler,et al.  Characterization of perovskite solar cells: Towards a reliable measurement protocol , 2016 .

[12]  Henk J. Bolink,et al.  Removing Leakage and Surface Recombination in Planar Perovskite Solar Cells , 2017 .

[13]  Suren A. Gevorgyan,et al.  Accurate characterization of OPVs: Device masking and different solar simulators , 2013 .

[14]  Prashant V Kamat,et al.  Best Practices in Perovskite Solar Cell Efficiency Measurements. Avoiding the Error of Making Bad Cells Look Good. , 2015, The journal of physical chemistry letters.

[15]  Yanhong Luo,et al.  The influence of different mask aperture on the open-circuit voltage measurement of perovskite solar cells , 2015 .

[16]  Martin A. Green,et al.  Solar cell fill factors: General graph and empirical expressions , 1981 .

[17]  Seigo Ito,et al.  Photovoltaic characterization of dye‐sensitized solar cells: effect of device masking on conversion efficiency , 2006 .

[18]  Marco Seeland,et al.  Comparison of distributed vs. lumped series resistance modeling of thin‐film solar cells and modules: Influence on the geometry‐dependent efficiency , 2015 .

[19]  Thomas Kirchartz,et al.  Beyond Bulk Lifetimes: Insights into Lead Halide Perovskite Films from Time-Resolved Photoluminescence , 2016 .

[20]  Henry J. Snaith,et al.  How should you measure your excitonic solar cells , 2012 .