Transcript Organic semiconductors Solar Cells & Light Emitting Diodes

Organic semiconductors
Solar Cells & Light Emitting Diodes
Lior Tzabari, Dan Mendels, Nir Tessler
Nanoelectronic center, EE Dept., Technion
Outline
• Macroscopic View of recombination P3HT:PCBM
or – Exciton Annihilation as the bimolecular loss
• Microscopic description of transport
– Implications for recombination
What about recombination in
P3HT-PCBM Devices
Let’s take a macroscopic look and
decide on the relevant processes.
Picture taken from:
http://blog.disorderedmatter.eu/2008/06/05/
picture-story-how-do-organic-solar-cellsfunction/ (Carsten Deibel)
The Tool/Method to be Used
QE as a function of excitation power
AP
Charge generation rate
J PC  q  e E n  q  h E p

Je  J  n  h p
e
h
IL 
q
 0



E ff  A  1 



  h   e  np  dq

 1 


Photo-current
Signature
No re-injection
of Loss
due to
LangevinLangevin
recombination-current
Recombination

AP 9  h  e   
1

 
J SC L 8
h





AP 9  h

e 

J SC L 8
h

2
N. Tessler and N. Rappaport, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 96, pp. 1083-1087, 2004.
N. Rappaport, et. al., Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 98, p. 033714, 2005.
What can we learn using simple measurements
SRH (trap assisted)
LUMO
Mid
gap
HOMO
P doped  Traps already with holes
R SR H  C n N t n e
1 .0 5
1
2
0 .9 5
1 .8
Bimolecular
0 .9
1 .6
0 .8 5
1 .4
0 .8
Monomol
0 .7 5
1 .2
0 .7
1
0 .6 5
-3
10
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
2
In te n sity [m W /cm ]
Intrinsic (traps are empty)
R SR H
2
C n N t  n h n e  n i 

 Et 
 n e  n h   2 n i  cosh 

kT



Nt – Density of traps.

dEt - Trap depth with respect to the
mid-gap level.

Cn- Capture coefficient
L. Tzabari, and N. Tessler, Journal of Applied Physics 109, 064501 (2011)
L o ss P o w e r-L a w
dEt
N o rm a lize d Q u a n tu m E fficie n cy
(intensity dependence of the cell efficiency)
What can we learn using simple measurements
(intensity dependence of the cell efficiency)
N o rm a lize d Q ua n tu m E fficie n cy
1 .2
1
Bi- Molecular
0 .8
0 .6
SRH (trap assisted)
0 .4
0 .2
0 .0 0 1
0 .0 1
0 .1
1
10
100
-2
L ig h t In te n s ity (m W cm )
L. Tzabari, and N. Tessler, Journal of Applied Physics 109, 064501 (2011)
Recombination in P3HT-PCBM
R pl  R L angevin 

 m in  
,  h     n p  ni
e
2
Kb
1
4 min
Anneal
0.95
Normalized QE
q
4min
Kb[cm3/sec]
0.9
1.5e-12
0.85
Kb – Langevin bimolecular
recombination coefficient
In practice detach it from its
physical origin and use it as an
independent fitting parameter
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
, - Experiment
, - Model
0.6
0.55
10
-2
10
0
Intensity [mW/cm2]
10
2
190nm of P3HT(Reike):PCBM
(Nano-C)(1:1 ratio, 20mg/ml) in
DCB
PCE ~ 2%

Recombination in P3HT-PCBM
R pl  R L angevin 
q

 m in  
,  h     n p  ni
e
2
Kb
1
0.95
4 min
Normalized QE
0.9
Kb[cm3/sec]
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
, - Experiment
, - Model
0.6
0.55
10
-2
10
0
2
Intensity [mW /cm
]
10
2
4min
10min
1.5e-12
8e-12

N o rm a liz e d Q u a n tu m E fficie n c y
Shockley-Read-Hall Recombination
LUMO
1 .1
dEt
1
Mid gap
4 min
0 .9
HOMO
0 .8
Intrinsic (traps are empty)
0 .7
0 .6
,
- Experiment
- Model
,
0 .5
-2
10
10
-1
10
0
R SR H
10
1
10
2
10
3
2
C n N t  n h n e  n i 

 E 
 n e  n h   2 n i  cosh  t 
 kT 
Inten sity [m W /cm ^2]
I. Ravia and N. Tessler, JAPh, vol. 111, pp. 104510-7, 2012. (P doping < 1012cm-3)
L. Tzabari and N. Tessler, "JAP, vol. 109, p. 064501, 2011.
Shockley-Read-Hall + Langevin
The dynamics of
recombination at the interface
is both
SRH and Langevin
Nt [1/cm3]
dEt [eV]
Kb[cm3/sec]
1
4min
1.9e17
0.435
0.5e-12
10min
1.2e17
0.371
0.5e-12
Normalized QE
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
,
,
0.5
10
-2
LUMO
- Experiment
- Model
10
Mid
gap
dEt
0
Intensity [mW/cm2]
10
2
HOMO
Exciton Polaron Recombination
Neutrally excited molecule (exciton)
may transfer its energy to a charged
molecule (electron, hole, ion).
As in any energy transfer it requires
overlap between the exciton emission
spectrum and the “ion” absorption
spectrum.
M. Pope and C. E. Swenberg, Electronic Processes in Organic Crystals., 1982.
A. J. Ferguson, et. al., J Phys Chem C, vol. 112, pp. 9865-9871, 2008 (Kep=3e-8)
J. M. Hodgkiss, et. al., Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 22, p. 1567, 2012. (Kep=1e-8)
Exciton Polaron Recombination
G  n ex  K d  V  
K ep  n ex  n pl

N o rm a lize d Q u a n tu m E fficie n cy
E xciton-polaron recom bination rate
n ex
 ex
1 .1
1
4 minutes
0 .9
4min
10min
Nt [1/cm^3]
1.9e17
1.05e17
dEt [eV]
0.435
0.365
Kep[cm^3/sec]
1.6e-8
1.6e-8
0 .8
10 minutes
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
-2
10
,
- Experiment
- Model
,
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
In te n s ity [m W /c m ^2 ]
2
10
3

Nt – Density of traps.

dEt - trap depth with respect
to the mid-gap level.

Kep – Exciton polaron
recombination rate.

Kd– dissociation rate
1e9-1e10 [1/sec]
A. J. Ferguson, et. al., J Phys Chem C, vol. 112, pp. 9865-9871, 2008 (Kep=3e-8)
J. M. Hodgkiss, et. al., Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 22, p. 1567, 2012. (Kep=1e-8)
N o rm alized Q uan tu m E fficiency
Traps or CT states are stabilized during annealing
1 .1
1
4 minutes
0 .9
0 .8
10 minutes
0 .7
4min
10min
Nt [1/cm^3]
1.9e17
1.05e17
dEt [eV]
0.435
0.365
Kep[cm^3/sec]
1.6e-8
1.6e-8
0 .6
0 .5
-2
10
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
In te n s ity [m W /c m ^ 2 ]
T. A. Clarke, M. Ballantyne, J. Nelson, D. D. C. Bradley, and J. R. Durrant, "Free Energy
Control of Charge Photogeneration in Polythiophene/Fullerene Solar Cells: The Influence
of Thermal Annealing on P3HT/PCBM Blends," Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 18,
pp. 4029-4035, 2008. (~50meV stabilization)
E xte rn a l Q u a n tu m E fficie n cy %
Bias Dependence
5 .5
5
10 minutes anneal
-0 .2
-0 .1
0 .0
0 .1
4 .5
0 .2
4
3 .5
3
2 .5
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
In te n sity [m W /cm ]
2
Charge recombination is activated  C
A p p lie d V o lta g e [V ]
0 .2
0 .1
0
-0 .1
-0 .2
1 .2
n
t
C N /
1 .3
1 .1
N o rm a lize d
1
0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
0 .5
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
0 .7
In te rn a l V o lta g e [V ]
0 .8
n
N t  (V )
Obviously we need to understand
better the recombination
reactions
Let’s look at the Transport leading
to…
Modeling Solar Cells based on material with
Electronic Disorder
E
E
High Order
Band
x
Density of states
Low disorder
E
E
Band
Tail states (traps)
x
E
Density of states
E
High disorder
E
E
x
Density of localized states
Density of states
Disordered hopping systems
are
degenerate semiconductors
Y. Roichman and N. Tessler, APL, vol. 80, pp. 1948-1950, Mar 18 2002.
To describe the charge density/population one should use
Fermi-Dirac statistics and not Boltzmann
The notion of degeneracy or
degenerate gas is not unique to
semiconductors.
Actually it has its roots in very
basic thermodynamics texts.
White Dwarf
Degenerate Gas
When the Gas is non-degenerate the
average energy of the particles is
independent of their density.
When the Gas is degenerate the
average energy of the particles
depends on their density.
White Dwarf
v
v
(n) 
E (n)

v
3
kT
2
Enhancing the density of a degenerate electron gas requires
substantial energy (to elevate the average energy/velocity)
 this stops white dwarfs from collapsing (degeneracy pressure)
Degenerate Gas
White Dwarf
Enhancing the density of a degenerate electron
gas requires substantial energy (to elevate the
average energy/velocity)
Relation to Semiconductors
The simplest way: Enhanced random velocity = Enhanced Diffusion
(Generalized Einstein Relation)
But what about localized systems?
Can we relate enhanced average
energy to enhanced velocity?
Wetzelaer et. al., PRL, 2011
GER Not Valid
Monte-Carlo simulation of transport
Standard M.C. means d
0
uniform density
dx
C h a rg e D e n sity re la tive to D O S
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
0 .0 5
Y. Roichman and N. Tessler, "Generalized
Einstein relation for disordered
semiconductors - Implications for device
performance," APL, 80, 1948, 2002.
E in s te in R e la tio n [e V ]
G.E.R.
0 .0 4
0 .0 3
0 .0 2
Monte-Carlo
0 .0 1
0
10
17
10
18
10
19
10
3
C h a rg e D e n sity [1 /cm ]
20
Comparing Monte-Carlo to
Drift-Diffusion & Generalized Einstein Relation
Implement contacts as in real Devices
d
 0
dx
2 10
1 .5 1 0
1 10
5 10
19
3
2 .5 1 0
C a rrie r D e n sity [1 /cm ]
3
C a rrie r D e n sity [1 /cm ]
4 10
19
19
qE
19
18
0
3 .5 1 0
3 10
2 .5 1 0
2 10
1 .5 1 0
1 10
19
19
19
19
qE
19
19
19
GER Holds for real device5 Monte-Carlo
Simulation
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
D ista n ce fro m 1 st la ttice p la n e [n m ]
18
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
D ista n ce fro m 1 st la ttice p la n e [n m ]
Where does most of the confusion
come from
D The intuitive Random Walk
The coefficient describing
J e  qn  e E  qDe
d
dx
Generalized Einstein Relation is defined ONLY for
J. Bisquert, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, vol. 10, pp. 3175-3194, 2008.
n
d
dx
E
What is Hiding behind
E
d
dx
There is an Energy Transport
X
X
Charges move from high density region to low density region
Charges with High Energy move from high density region to low density
Degenerate Gas
White Dwarf
Enhancing the density of a degenerate electron
gas requires substantial energy (to elevate the
average energy/velocity)
Relation to Semiconductors
The fundamental way:
Density
Energy
Density Gradient
Energy Gradient
Driving Force
J  qn ( x )  ( x ) F ( x )  q
dn
dx
D (x)  n( x) ( x)
dE
dx
Enhanced “Diffusion”
All this work just to show that the
Generalized Einstein Relation
Is here to stay?!
J  qn ( x )  ( x ) F ( x )  q
dn
dx
degenerate
E is E ( n , T )
D (x)  n( x) ( x)
dE
dx
Enhanced “Diffusion”
There is transport of energy even in the
absence of Temperature gradients
There is an energy associated with the charge ensemble
And we can both quantify and monitor it!
D. Mendels and N. Tessler, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 117, p 3287, 2013.
How much “Excess” energy is there?
E n e rgy [ ]
D istrib u tio n [a .u .]
1 .2
1
0 .8
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
D e n sity O f S ta te s
= 3 k T ; T = 3 0 0 K
0 .6
0 .4
EF
0 .2
0
-0 .4
1
D istrib u tio n [a .u .]
150meV
-5
-0 .3
-0 .2
-0 .1
0
Ju m p s D N
E
n
e
C a rrie rs rgy [e V ] Ju m p U P
0 .8
=78meV (3kT)
DOS = 1021cm-3
N=5x1017cm-3=5x10-4 DOS
Low Electric Field
E
0 .6
0 .4
0 .2
0
-0 .4
-0 .3
-0 .2
-0 .1
0 .1
0
0 .1
E n e rg y [e V ]
B. Hartenstein and H. Bassler, Journal of Non - Crystalline Solids 190, 112 (1995).
Ensembles’ Energy
There is an Energy associated with the charge ensemble
And we can both quantify and monitor it!
Transport
&
Recombination
are reactions
*




A  D   E    A  D
 E 
*
R
R  exp 

 kBT 
We should treat the relevant reactions by considering the
Ensembles’ Energy
D. Mendels and N. Tessler, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 117, p 3287, 2013.

Think Ensemble
Mobile Carriers
Center of Carrier Distribution
Density Of States
Charge Distribution
The Single Carrier Picture
D. Monroe, "Hopping in Exponential Band Tails," Phys. Rev. Lett.,
vol. 54, pp. 146-149, 1985.

Think Ensemble
Mobile Carriers
Center of Carrier Distribution
1) This is similar to the case of a band with trap states
2) There is an extra energy available for recombination.
Mathematically, the “activation” associated with this energy is
already embedded in the charge mobility
The operation of Solar Cells is all about balancing E nergy
Think “high density”
or “many charges”
NOT “single charge”
There is extra energy
embedded in the
ensemble
(CT is not necessarily
bound!)
The High Density Picture
Mobile and Immobile Carriers
D istrib u tio n [a .u .]
1
C a rrie rs
Jumps distribution
0 .8
0 .6
Is it a BAND?
EF
0 .4
0 .2
0
-0 .4
Mobile Carriers
-0 .3
-0 .2
-0 .1
=3kT
DOS = 1021cm-3
N=5x1017cm-3=5x10-4 DOS
Low Electric Field
0
0 .1
E n e rg y [e V ]
Transport is carried by high energy carriers
Summary
The Generalized Einstein Relation is rooted in basic thermodynamics
Holds also for hopping systems
Think Ensemble
Energy transport (unify transport with Seebeck effect)
There is “extra” energy in disordered system [0.15 – 0.3eV]
Why some systems exhibit Langevin and some not?
 Why some exhibit bi-molecular recombination?
Is this important in/for P3HT:PCBM based solar cells (probably)
 Why some exhibit polaron induced exciton quenching
Langevin is less physically justified compared to SRH
At the high excitation regime:
Polaron induced exciton annihilation is the bimolecular loss
Thank You
Ministry of Science, Tashtiyot program
Helmsley project on Alternative Energy of the
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, and the
Weizmann Institute of Science
Israeli Nanothecnology Focal Technology Area on
"Nanophotonics for Detection"
34
Original Motivation
Measure
Diodes I-V
Extract the
ideality factor
Y. Vaynzof et. al. JAP, vol. 106, p. 6, Oct 2009.
The ideality factor
Is the Generalized
Einstein Relation
The Generalized Einstein Relation
is NOT valid for
organic semiconductors
G. A. H. Wetzelaer, et. al., "Validity of the Einstein Relation in
Disordered Organic Semiconductors," PRL, 107, p. 066605, 2011.
How do they work?
Donor
Acceptor
P3HT
PCBM
Immediately after illumination
LUMO of PCBM
HOMO of P3HT
37
How do they work?
Donor
Acceptor
P3HT
PCBM
LUMO of PCBM
HOMO of P3HT
38