Comparing the potential of different strategies for colour tuning in thin film photovoltaic technologies
Source abstract
Abstract
While the performance of some emerging solar cell technologies is rocketing, there are other important parameters that also need to be considered for industrialization, including aesthetics, payback time or long-term stability. More specifically, aesthetical features of the solar cells play a very important role in the path towards the integration of these semi-transparent technologies into the buildings and windows of the future. In this work, we have implemented a theoretical methodology to study in depth colour tuning in polymer-based organic photovoltaic cells that uses experimentally complex refractive indices. We compare quantitatively basic interference effects (through active layer thickness), binaries with different donors and different acceptors, and ternary systems where the third component is either active or a simple dye. For hybrid perovskite solar cells, we compare the colour tuning capability of blending and alloying. Additionally, we show that the same theoretical framework can be employed for the so-called inverse problem, i.e. determining the best solar cell parameters (specific materials, donor:acceptor ratio and photoactive film thickness) that can reproduce a desired set of chromaticity coordinates.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Perovskite Materials and Applications · Organic Electronics and Photovoltaics · Conducting polymers and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Nanostructured Materials Department, Institut de Ciència de Materials de Barcelona (ICMAB-CSIC), Bellaterra, Spain
Unit of Printed Electronics & Embedded Devices, EURECAT, Centre Tecnológic de Catalunya, Mataró, Spain
Funding
H2020 European Research Council · Spanish Severo Ochoa Centre of Excellence
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/adma.20170019210.1002/adma.201700192 ↗
2. 10.3390/molecules2104047510.3390/molecules21040475 ↗
3. 10.1002/adma.20120287310.1002/adma.201202873 ↗
4. 10.1007/s40820-016-0107-310.1007/s40820-016-0107-3 ↗
5. 10.1039/C5NR00204D10.1039/C5NR00204D ↗
6. 10.1016/j.orgel.2017.01.00310.1016/j.orgel.2017.01.003 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.00810.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.008 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2017.05.03210.1016/j.nanoen.2017.05.032 ↗
9. 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b0939310.1021/acs.jpcc.5b09393 ↗
10. 10.1039/c3ee43822h10.1039/c3ee43822h ↗
11. 10.1021/jz500679710.1021/jz5006797 ↗
12. 10.1021/nn405230910.1021/nn4052309 ↗
13. 10.1002/aenm.20170035610.1002/aenm.201700356 ↗
14. 10.1038/srep0703610.1038/srep07036 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.cap.2016.12.01010.1016/j.cap.2016.12.010 ↗
16. 10.1002/adfm.20160590810.1002/adfm.201605908 ↗
17. 10.1038/nphoton.2013.27610.1038/nphoton.2013.276 ↗
18. 10.1021/nl504349z10.1021/nl504349z ↗
19. 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b1114410.1021/acs.jpcc.5b11144 ↗
20. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b0401910.1021/acs.nanolett.6b04019 ↗
21. 10.1364/OE.25.00A10110.1364/OE.25.00A101 ↗
22. 10.1039/c2ee22623e10.1039/c2ee22623e ↗
23. 10.1021/acsphotonics.7b0061810.1021/acsphotonics.7b00618 ↗
24. 10.1039/C5TC00622H10.1039/C5TC00622H ↗
25. 10.1021/acsnano.6b0022510.1021/acsnano.6b00225 ↗
26. Commission internationale de l'Eclairage proceedings, 1932. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
27. 10.1063/1.37075710.1063/1.370757 ↗
28. Blasco Ferragud FX · 1999
29. 10.1002/andp.1935416070510.1002/andp.19354160705 ↗
30. 10.1038/nmat464510.1038/nmat4645 ↗
31. 10.1039/C5NR05435D10.1039/C5NR05435D ↗
32. 10.1021/acsenergylett.7b0121710.1021/acsenergylett.7b01217 ↗
33. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b0171610.1021/acs.jpclett.5b01716 ↗
34. Liu D, Yang C, Lunt RR · Joule · 2018