Proceedings of International Conference on Hybrid and Organic Photovoltaics (HOPV18)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29363/nanoge.hopv.2018.168
Publication date: 21st February 2018
Perovskite solar cells based on a triple mesoporous stack (titania scaffold, insulating layer, carbon-based electrode), represent likely the most cost-efficient option amongst the possible architecture/materials combinations for this technology [1]. This device structure is endowed with appealing features for up-scaling and commercialization: all layers are printable [2], large modules have been already demonstrated [3], the perovskite solution can be infiltrated throughout the stack via scalable processes, e.g. ink jet printing [4] and robotic mesh [5], over 1000 hours stability has been reported both indoor (1 sun, AM1.5) [2] and outdoor [6], when 5-AVAI (5-ammonium valeric acid iodide) is added to the perovskite solution.
We report the outputs of an inter-lab stability experiment on our AVA-MAPI carbon cells - which involved several partners, within the StableNextSol COST action’s frame, and the application of the ISOS protocols - highlighting both the promising and the disappointing results [7]:
ISOS-D1, D2: over 1000 hours stability;
ISOS-O1 (Barcelona and Malta): 30 days stability;
ISOS-L1, L2 at open circuit: over 50% performance drop in less than 10 hours;
ISOS-L1 at maximum power point: drop to 80% of initial efficiency value (T80) after 79 hours.
Aiming to unfold the dynamics behind the poor stability under light, we investigated the composition of the precursors solution, ie PbI2 to organic halides ratio and AVAI to MAI ratio, and how even slightly changes can affect the solution stability, the infiltration through the stack, the crystallisation of the perovskite within the pores, the formation of PbI2 even in un-aged cells, which, on one side, can improve the devices’ performance, acting as a passivation layer, while, on the other side, can reduce the light stability in the presence of oxygen.
References
1 H. Chen, et al., Adv. Mat., 2017, 29 (24), 1603994.
2 A. Mei, et al., Science, 2014, 345 (6194), 295–298.
3 A. Priyadarshi, et al., Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 3687–3692.
4 S. G. Hashmi, et al., Adv. Mater. Technol., 2016, 2(1), 1600183.
5 S. Meroni, et al., Science and Technol. of Adv. Mat., 2018, 19(1), 1-9.
6 X. Li, et al., Energy Technol., 2015, 3, 551–555.
7 F. De Rossi, et al., manuscript in preparation.