Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 1

Progress Report
www.advenergymat.de
Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic

Materials (Version 1)
Osbel Almora,* Derya Baran, Guillermo C. Bazan, Christian Berger, Carlos I. Cabrera,
Kylie R. Catchpole, Sule Erten-Ela, Fei Guo, Jens Hauch, Anita W. Y. Ho-Baillie,
T. Jesper Jacobsson, Rene A. J. Janssen, Thomas Kirchartz, Nikos Kopidakis, Yongfang Li,
Maria A. Loi, Richard R. Lunt, Xavier Mathew, Michael D. McGehee, Jie Min,
David B. Mitzi, Mohammad K. Nazeeruddin, Jenny Nelson, Ana F. Nogueira,
Ulrich W. Paetzold, Nam-Gyu Park, Barry P. Rand, Uwe Rau, Henry J. Snaith,
Eva Unger, Lídice Vaillant-Roca, Hin-Lap Yip, and Christoph J. Brabec*
1. Introduction
Emerging photovoltaics (PVs) focus on a variety of applications comple-
menting large scale electricity generation. Organic, dye-sensitized, and some Photovoltaic (PV) technologies are one
of the best strategies for sustainable pro-
perovskite solar cells are considered in building integration, greenhouses,
duction of electricity based on renewable
wearable, and indoor applications, thereby motivating research on flexible, sources. Solar cells harvest the energy of
transparent, semitransparent, and multi-junction PVs. Nevertheless, it can be incident photons to produce usable elec-
very time consuming to find or develop an up-to-date overview of the state- tricity with the highest possible power
of-the-art performance for these systems and applications. Two important conversion efficiency (PCE). Moreover,
resources for recording research cells efficiencies are the National Renew- from every component of a PV system one
expects the best performance, long-term
able Energy Laboratory chart and the efficiency tables compiled biannually by
operational lifetime, low production costs
Martin Green and colleagues. Both publications provide an effective coverage and low environmental hazard. These
over the established technologies, bridging research and industry. An alterna- criteria are the focus for the PV research
tive approach is proposed here summarizing the best reports in the diverse community in order to meet the require-
research subjects for emerging PVs. Best performance parameters are pro- ments for the industry and the market, in
agreement with eco-friendly policies.
vided as a function of the photovoltaic bandgap energy for each technology
Cutting-edge scientific achievements
and application, and are put into perspective using, e.g., the Shockley– are typically published in prestigious
Queisser limit. In all cases, the reported data correspond to published and/or academic journals with high impact fac-
properly described certified results, with enough details provided for prospec- tors. However, the increasing number of
tive data reproduction. Additionally, the stability test energy yield is included journals, academic articles and in some
as an analysis parameter among state-of-the-art emerging PVs. cases even editorial policies for increasing
impact factors, enhance the complexity
Dr. O. Almora, Prof. C. J. Brabec Prof. D. Baran

Institute of Materials for Electronics and Energy Technology (i-MEET) King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE)
91058 Erlangen, Germany KAUST Solar Center (KSC)
E-mail: osbel.almora@fau.de; christoph.brabec@fau.de Thuwal 23955, Saudi Arabia
Dr. O. Almora, Prof. C. J. Brabec Prof. G. C. Bazan
Erlangen Graduate School of Advanced Optical Technologies (SAOT) Departments of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
91052 Erlangen, Germany National University of Singapore
Singapore 117585, Singapore
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202002774. C. Berger, Dr. J. Hauch, Prof. C. J. Brabec
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
© 2020 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley- Helmholtz-Institut Erlangen-Nürnberg for Renewable Energy (HI ERN)
VCH GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms of the 91058 Erlangen, Germany
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits
use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original Dr. C. I. Cabrera
work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. Consejo Zacatecano de Ciencia
Tecnología e Innovación
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202002774 Zacatecas 98090, Mexico
Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2002774 2002774 (1 of 39) © 2020 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
16146840, 2021, 11, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202002774 by Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi, Wiley Online Library on [12/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de
Prof. K. R. Catchpole Prof. M. D. McGehee

Research School of Electrical, Energy and Materials Engineering Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering & Materials Science
The Australian National University and Engineering Program
Canberra 2601, Australia University of Colorado
Prof. S. Erten-Ela Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Ege University Prof. M. D. McGehee
Solar Energy Institute National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Bornova, Izmir 35100, Turkey 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, USA
Prof. F. Guo Prof. J. Min
Institute of New Energy Technology The Institute for Advanced Studies
College of Information Science and Technology Wuhan University
Jinan University Wuhan 430072, China
Guangzhou 510632, China Prof. J. Min
Prof. A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie Key Laboratory of Materials Processing and Mold (Zhengzhou University)
School of Physics and The University of Sydney Nano Institute Ministry of Education
The University of Sydney Zhengzhou 450002, China
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Prof. D. B. Mitzi
Dr. T. J. Jacobsson, Dr. E. Unger Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science
HySPRINT Innovation Lab (Young Investigator Group Hybrid Materials & Department of Chemistry
Formation and Scaling) Duke University
Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin Durham, NC 27708, USA
Kekuléstrasse 5, Berlin 12489, Germany Prof. M. K. Nazeeruddin
Prof. R. A. J. Janssen Group for Molecular Engineering and Functional Materials
Molecular Materials and Nanosystems & Institute for Complex Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Molecular Systems Institut des Sciences et Ingénierie Chimiques
Eindhoven University of Technology Sion CH-1951, Switzerland
Eindhoven 5600 MB, The Netherlands Prof. J. Nelson
Prof. R. A. J. Janssen Department of Physics
Dutch Institute for Fundamental Energy Research Imperial College London
De Zaale 20, Eindhoven 5612 AJ, The Netherlands London SW7 2BZ, UK
Prof. T. Kirchartz, Prof. U. Rau Prof. A. F. Nogueira
IEK5-Photovoltaics Chemistry Institute
Forschungszentrum Jülich University of Campinas
Jülich 52425, Germany PO Box 6154, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-970, Brazil
Prof. T. Kirchartz Dr. U. W. Paetzold
Faculty of Engineering and CENIDE Institute of Microstructure Technology (IMT)
University of Duisburg-Essen Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Duisburg 47057, Germany Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen 76344, Germany
Dr. N. Kopidakis Dr. U. W. Paetzold
PV Cell and Module Performance Group Light Technology Institute (LTI)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
15313 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, USA Karlsruhe 76131, Germany
Prof. Y. Li Prof. N.-G. Park
School of Chemical Science School of Chemical Engineering
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Sungkyunkwan University
Beijing 100049, China Suwon 16419, Korea
Prof. Y. Li Prof. B. P. Rand
Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences Department of Electrical Engineering and Andlinger
CAS Key Laboratory of Organic Solids Center for Energy and the Environment
Institute of Chemistry Princeton University
Chinese Academy of Sciences Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Beijing 100190, China Prof. H. J. Snaith
Prof. M. A. Loi Clarendon Laboratory
Photophysics and OptoElectronics Group Department of Physics
Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials University of Oxford
University of Groningen Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Nijenborgh 4, Groningen, AG NL-9747, The Netherlands Prof. L. Vaillant-Roca
Prof. R. R. Lunt Photovoltaic Research Laboratory
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science Institute of Materials Science and Technology – Physics Faculty
Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Havana
Michigan State University Havana 10 400, Cuba
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA Prof. H.-L. Yip
Prof. X. Mathew State Key Laboratory of Luminescent Materials and Devices
Instituto de Energías Renovables South China University of Technology
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Guangzhou 510641, China
Temixco, Morelos 62580, Mexico Prof. C. J. Brabec
Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials
University of Groningen
Groningen 9747, The Netherlands
associated with identifying the state-of-the-art in each subject. on a single slide, which is one major attraction of the NREL
In the case of PV research, the community has identified the chart, makes it on the other hand problematic to use on slides
PCE measured under standard test conditions as the most without zooming into the areas of interest. Moreover, the con-
common widely used metric for comparing the performance of fidential nature of certificates, which both, Green et al. tables
solar cells. The PCE is determined by extracting the maximum and NREL’s chart are relying on, has created a need for discus-
output power (Pout) from the measured current density-voltage sions in the academic community on the value of “reported-
(J−V) characteristic under standard incident one sun illumina- before-published” updates. The rise of new and emerging
tion (Pin = 100 mW cm−2 of global AM1.5 spectrum) at 25 °C PV technologies, mainly during the last decade, resulting in
(IEC 60904-3: 2008, ASTM G-173-03 global). The Pout value can numerous materials research and development diversifications,
be expressed in terms of the short-circuit current density (Jsc), have even increased the necessity to conduct and resolve these
the open-circuit voltage (Voc), and the fill factor (FF) from the discussions.
illuminated J−V characteristic, via Emerging photovoltaic technologies include but are not
limited to devices like organic (OPV), dye sensitized (DSSCs)
Pout Voc J sc FF and perovskite solar cells (PSCs), made from polymers, mole-
PCE = = (1)
Pin Pin cules, or (colloidal) precursors, among many other material
classes like the oxides or chalcogenides, or silicides. Typi-
By using the Shockley–Queisser (SQ) detailed balance limit,[1] cally, these technologies do not correspond to single absorber
one can estimate the maximum PCE of a single-junction-like materials, but to families of materials, and in some cases the
PV solar cell as a function of the illumination, the tempera- device architectures must be varied due to essential scientific
ture and the bandgap of the absorber material. This can be of or technological design criteria. Therefore, reported-before-
interest to compare with the measured PCE of any given PV published updates for emerging PVs in both, Green et al. tables
cell. and NREL’s chart, often impede a minimal understanding of
Long-term stability is another important metric for what the materials, structures and working principles for each
photovoltaic materials and devices. However, the study of deg- reported cell are, constituting a shortcoming for reproducibility.
radation of most PV devices from first and second generations, Moreover, the focus of emerging PVs is not only based on sup-
like silicon and inorganic thin film solar cells, has always been plying green electricity to the grid. The research on emerging
predominantly an industrial concern rather than being of aca- solar cell technologies is particularly targeting integration into
demic interest. One simple reason for this could be the stable buildings, greenhouses, airplanes, sails, automobiles, fabrics
performance lifetimes larger than 10 years commonly exhib- or indoor applications which require flexible and semitrans-
ited by these devices.[2,3] In contrast, most typical academic parent devices. Some of these applications must sacrifice PCE
research projects are funded for 2–3 years. Furthermore, other in order to obtain added functionality (such as flexibility, low
very active research frontiers like the lowering of costs and the weight or transparency). Thus, state-of-the-art devices in these
reduction of negative environmental impacts would be difficult contexts would never make it to the lists of best research cells
to parameterize before the industrial stage; finding standard per technologies.
metrics for fairly identifying the “cheapest” and “healthiest” PV Each new material class or emerging PV technology may
devices are challenging tasks for the future. reveal new phenomena that were previously unknown. In
The absolute certified PCE records for most prominent PV the case of perovskite devices, the PCE measured with the
technologies have been successfully increasing, mostly during standard certification procedure has been proven to be unre-
the last three decades, as biannually summarized in the “Solar liable due to the presence of capacitive responses caused
cell efficiency tables” by Green et al.[4–6] since 1993, and with by mobile-ion movements responding within the measure-
more immediacy in National Renewable Energy Laboratory ment time. This phenomenon is usually known as hysteresis
(NREL’s) “Best research-cell efficiency chart.”[7] The tables from in the J−V curve[8–11] and it has motivated the introduction of
Green et al. are the more comprehensive reference, listing maximum power point (MPP) tracking protocols in order to
state-of-the-art values for performance parameters: PCE, Voc, validate the actual power that can be extracted from the cell in
Jsc, and FF of certified devices. They also present the J−V curves more realistic conditions.[12,13] Given such phenomena, which
under standard illumination conditions and external quantum may occur for any new emerging technology, it is of utmost
efficiency (EQE) for each new report. These data are effective importance to constantly report the most complete and detailed
for tracking progress in technologies like Si solar cells, where a data set on record efficiency devices.
significant number of reports come from industry, while main- In addition, long-term performance stability represents a
taining confidentiality. Also, first and second generation in PVs key focus of research in emerging photovoltaics, especially
have been significantly optimized, and retain some general for organic and hybrid materials, which are susceptible to
design concepts and the core absorbing materials. Academi- faster degradation pathways. In practice, one can already get
cally, this means that one can still grasp some general idea of a good evaluation of stability by performing inline tests under
the devices’ working principles and fabrication technologies, 1 sun illumination intensity at 65 °C for 200 h or at 85 °C for
even if complete details are missing. With a similar philosophy, 1000 h, i.e., 8 days or 6 weeks respectively. Particularly, 200 h
NREL’s chart is the community’s go-to representation for the can be a more suitable time scale for the typical duration of
timeline evolution of PVs. However, for further and more in- academic research projects and specially for newer emerging
depth analysis, one is missing the underlying data behind each PVs. Interestingly, a parameter which summarizes the overall
data point on the graph. The sheer amount of information device performance, including both efficiency and stability, is
the extracted energy density during the test time τ, herein also in stability for emerging solar cells are summarized. In most
referred as the stability test energy yield (STEY), resulting from of the cases, the data will be shown in relation to the Shockley–
computing the integral Queisser detailed balance limit,[1] as we believe that the SQ
τ
limit as a function of absorber’s bandgap represents the most
τ
appropriate benchmark for emerging PV technologies. This
E τ = ∫ Pout dt = ∫ Pin PCE dt (2)
0 0
survey is intended to be updated periodically, summarizing the
latest advances in emerging PV research.
where Pin is the incident light intensity (e.g., 100 mW cm−2) and
the STEY can be taken for 200 and 1000 h as E200h and E1000h,
respectively. The similar concept of lifetime energy yield (LEY) 2. Inclusion Criteria
has previously been introduced for the time the PCE does reach
80% of the initial value (T80), denoting the corresponding The main objective of the present survey is to provide the PV
integral (2) as ET80.[14,15] Note that ET80 is a very practical research community with a resource for the reproduction of
metric when T80 < 200 h and/or T80 < 1000 h, but it can be best achievements in emerging PVs and the analysis of the
misleading for more stable or PCE increasing cells. Addition- current research results and trends. With that motivation,
ally, one can also use the SQ limit[1] to estimate the maximum each report must fulfill certain requirements before it can be
STEY as Eτ,SQ = Pin PCESQ τ for a device with SQ limited effi- accepted for inclusion in the graphs and tables in the following
ciency PCESQ during a stability test of duration τ. Moreover, sections. These selection criteria may evolve with time, in
for devices with similar ranges of efficiency, it is also useful to accord with best practices and tools developed by the research
check the degradation rate DR = ∂PCE/∂t as a function of time community.
in case inline monitoring data are available. Alternatively, in
case of offline measurements, one can sample the initial and
final states in a stability test, resulting in an overall degradation 2.1. Best Efficiency Cells Criteria
rate
As a main rule, the reported efficiency should correspond to an
PCE (τ ) − PCE (0 ) (3) original published or already accepted (available DOI) article in
DR τ =
τ a peer-reviewed journal indexed in the ISI-Web-of-Knowledge
Journal-Citation-Reports (Clarivate Analytics). The article
most conveniently presented in units of percentage per day. For should include an experimental section with a description of
instance, one can take DR200h and DR1000h as the overall degra- the device structure, fabrication methods and relevant meas-
dation rates for 200 and 1000 h, respectively. urement conditions, with enough detail provided to allow the
However, probably because of the absence of institutions reproduction of the results.
offering degradation certificates, there is no international refer- The published/accepted articles must include the J−V curve
ence for state-of-the-art achievements in this category. A most validating the PCE values and the EQE spectrum,[18,19] some-
beneficial movement during the last years was the establish- times referred to as the incident photon-to-collected-electron
ment of the so called ISOS protocols, which regulate the life- conversion efficiency (IPCE). This is true for both PVs and
time reporting conditions of emerging PV technologies.[16] In luminescent solar concentrators (LSC). Unpublished certified
parallel, efforts around the ISOS protocols have led to a tech- efficiencies will be considered only in two cases. First, those
nical specification for the testing protocol of photovoltaic devices included in Green’s et al. efficiency tables[4] will be incorporated
enabled by nanomaterials. With the IEC TS 62876-2-1:2018,[17] as illustrative references. Otherwise, the authors may provide a
for the first time a standard has been developed that defines the digital copy of the certification and the experimental description
most significant testing protocols for stability. However, these and validation of the bandgap value (EQE spectrum), as would
guidelines do not take away the necessity of independent insti- be expected for a publication. The latter information would be
tutions being able to verify lifetime observations of emerging incorporated as supporting information if the reported effi-
record devices, which are probably 10 years or more away from ciency is ultimately incorporated into the charts. Similarly, the
larger scale outdoor testing. Especially, the large number of reproduction of results in laboratories different to those of the
interdependent testing conditions complicates the comparative authors in the original paper will be highlighted upon receipt of
analysis of degradation studies in the literature due to diverse the corresponding information.
measurement conditions, equipment, or environmental con- The J − V curves should be measured under standard illumi-
trols. The presentation of data in normalized plots, which is nation conditions (1 sun = 100 mW cm−2 illumination intensity
interesting to display trends but not the overall power output of AM1.5G spectrum ΓAM1.5G).[20] The manuscript or its sup-
as a function of time for of emerging cells, can also complicate porting information must explicitly reflect the values for Voc,
stability analysis. Jsc, FF, PCE as well as the associated surface area of the device.
In this work, a new reference and overview for already- Regarding the latter, the considered type of area should be clari-
published best emerging photovoltaic research cells is pre- fied (total, aperture or designated as defined in the efficiency
sented. The PCE values for each PV technology are presented tables version 39),[21] and we strongly suggest the use of masks
as a function of the photovoltaic device bandgap energy Eg, as with known aperture. In addition, the type of solar simulator
defined in Equation (5). Similarly, the best performing flexible, (e.g., AAA, ABA), the corresponding standard (IEC 60904–9,[22]
transparent, and semitransparent PVs and best achievements ASTM E 927-05,[23] JIS C 8912-1998),[24] brand and model should
be mentioned, as well as the measurement temperature, atmos- E (eV)

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
pheric conditions (e.g., air, N2, Ar), and whether light soaking 100
was included and for how long. We also encourage the reporting
of PCE with an MPP tracking (i.e., “stabilized efficiency” after
80
5 min) measurement, which is specifically important for
recording the performance of PSCs, or for related technolo-
gies for which device stability and hysteresis[8,9] are known to 60
EQE (%)
be issues. For these devices the voltage scan rate, direction and
method (continuous/dynamic)[25,26] shall be given. In case of 40
significant hysteresis (≥0.1%), and provided the two scan direc-
tions, only the lowest PCE value shall be considered. OPV 17.4% eff.
The mandatory EQE spectra at short-circuit are typically 20 PSC 25.2% eff.
expressed as a function of the photon wavelength λ, which DSSC 12.3 % eff.
allows the calculation of the theoretical photocurrent under 0
1 sun illumination intensity of AM1.5G spectrum (ΓAM1.5G) 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
λ (nm)
according to the integral
Figure 1. Experimental (data points) external quantum efficiency spectra
q for certified record organic, perovskite and dye sensitized solar cells as
J sc = ∫ EQE ( λ )·λ·Γ AM1.5G ( λ ) dλ (4)
hc reported in Green’s et al. tables.[4] Copyright 2019, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The lines are the fits to Equation (5) in the regions of the photovoltaic
where q is the elementary charge, h is the Planck’s constant, bandgap and the solid circles indicate the λg values: 880, 795, and 670 nm
for OPV, PSC, and DSSC, respectively. Likewise, the corresponding λs
c the speed of light, and ΓAM1.5G(λ) is typically in units of
values are 45, 17, and 49 nm.
W m−2 nm−1.
The agreement between Jsc from the J − V curve and that
after Equation (4) from the EQE spectrum (up to 10% of devia- below 50 nm (like in Figure 1) and indicating a graded profile
tion) is a minimal validation required for non-certified PCE as λs approaches and exceeds 100 nm. The device bandgap is
reports. In addition, the EQE is also the essential measurement defined as
technique for estimating the bandgap energy value Eg of the
device. hc
Eg = (6)
The photovoltaic bandgap is here defined as the inflec- λg
tion point of the EQE spectra in the region of the absorption
threshold,[27,28] typically between 20% and 80% of the maximum and the fitting and λg estimation procedures are illustrated
EQE. This definition is the most appropriate for the evaluation in Figure 1. Nevertheless, despite reporting an Eg value using
of the SQ limit[1,29] and, unlike the optical bandgap, here the a technique different than EQE not necessary relates to the
aim is to characterize the complete process from charge char- corresponding SQ limit, some other methods can be consid-
rier generation to current extraction, considering losses in the ered additionally, such as the device optical bandgap from
internal quantum efficiency. Additionally, the EQE measure- typical linear fits for absorption Tauc plots,[30,31] and Gaussian
ment is relatively simple, the necessary equipment being gener- fits in photoluminescence (PL) and/or electroluminescence
ally available in the PV laboratories and the data are frequently (EL) spectra. Importantly, in any case the Eg value must relate
provided in the literature. to the full device;, e.g., one could use optical transmission
The Eg value (the smallest photoactive bandgap in the measurements on thin film cells before the evaporation of
system, if there are more than one) would be expected explic- the metallic electrodes, but not on the single absorber film
itly in the article and endorsed with the EQE spectrum analysis. without selective layers. In addition, the measurement con-
This is expected for both PV and LSC alike. The inflection point ditions should be specified, i.e., the equipment model and
can be directly calculated from the data, or a corresponding brand, as well as the temperature and atmosphere for the
interpolation, by locating the maximum in the spectra deriva- measurement.
tive ∂EQE/∂E, or ∂EQE/∂λ. Alternatively, our preferred proce- For each Eg value, the best published PCE value with a
dure has been the one-step fitting of the EQE spectra in the bandgap resolution of 10 meV will be taken. For transparent
region around the bandgap wavelength λg (inflection point) to and semitransparent PVs, the corresponding evidence for the
the step-like sigmoid function average visible transmittance (AVT) should be provided by plot-
ting the transmittance curve as a function of wavelength (as
Am (5) measured for the entire device without a reference sample).[32]
EQE ( λ ) =
1 + exp 2.63 ( λ − λg ) /λs 
 Reports on flexible substrates should include the thickness and
type of the substrate.
Flexible and/or transparent/semitransparent properties
where Am and λs are fitting parameters related with the max- should likewise be expressed in the manuscript, or in the sup-
imum EQE just after the step and the slope during the step, porting information (when relevant), and supported with at
respectively. On the latter, note that λs expresses the broadening least one figure illustrating the transparency/flexibility. The
of the absorption threshold in the EQE spectrum, being optimal substrate for flexible cells should be thinner than 250 µm,
Table 1. List of items and/or information to include in the manuscripts, or supporting information, for the published article where the achievement
in efficiency and/or stability of the research solar cell is first presented. Requirements (i–iii) are mandatory for all cases and iv (a–c) are only required
for certain cases.
No. Information Figure/data

i Efficiency under standard test conditions (1 sun AM1.5G illumination, 25 °C): J −V curve plot
•Performance parameter values from J −V curve (PCE, Voc, Jsc, and FF using Equation (1)).
•Area (surface value and type: total, aperture or designated).
•Solar simulator (type, standard, model and brand).
•Measurement conditions (temperature, air or N2-atmosphere, whether a black matte background was used).
ii Photovoltaic bandgap: EQE − λ spectrum
•Eg or λg and λs values (from EQE fitting using equation (5)).
•Jsc value from EQE (using Equation (4)).
•Used instrument for EQE (model and brand).
•Measurement conditions (temperature, air or N2-atmosphere, whether a black matte background was used).
•Additional methods can also be reported (e.g., Absorption Tauc plot).
iii Absorber material: Optional figure/data
Experimental section: description of structure and fabrication procedure allowing reproduction of the results.
iv.a Photostability test: Non-normalized PCE
• Degradation conditions (e.g., MPP, OC, SC). − t degradation record
• Illumination spectrum (e.g., AM1.5G, UV filter model and brand).
• Illumination intensity (e.g., 100 mW cm−2, provide information on how intensity was tracked).
• Measurement conditions: temperature, atmosphere (air with RH or inert N2/Ar), instrument (model & brand or self-made).
• Integrated output energy for 200 and 1000 h under 1 sun illumination (E200h and E1000h using Equation (2)).
• PCE (including EQE) after 200 and 1000 h (measured as in “i”)
iv.b Transparent and semitransparent PV T − λ and R − λ
• AVT value (using equation (7) as determined by the calculator provided in “Data S1”[32] and the support section of emerging-pv.org) spectra
• Aesthetics (e.g., CRI or (a*, b*))
• PBCC value (using Equation (8))
• Used instrument for T and R (model and brand)
• Measurement conditions (temperature, air or N2-atmosphere, whether a black matte background was used)
iv.c Flexible PV Cross section/
• Substrate thickness bending picture
• Minimum radius the solar cell was bent to without reducing <5% performance output
• Measurement conditions
for which a measurement evidence should be presented (e.g., emerging-pv.org) and are directly utilized by various industries
microscopy, profilometry). Additionally, an estimation of the including the window industry. Finally, it is necessary to pro-
minimum bending radius for which the PCE is larger than 5% vide a photon balance consistency check (PBCC) to assure that
of that without bending should be provided. none of the optical measurements (EQE(λ) or T(λ)) are mis-
For transparent and semitransparent devices, many of the key measured or misreported. In units of percentage, the photon
protocols for measuring, analyzing, validating, and reporting balance must satisfy
have recently been outlined.[32,33] When measuring the J−V, a
black matte background should be placed behind the device PBCC = EQE ( λ ) + T ( λ ) + R ( λ ) ≤ 100% (8)
to prevent a double pass reflection. The transmittance spec-
trum T(λ) of the device, measured without a reference sample, where EQE(λ) ≤ A(λ) and becomes equal as the internal
should be provided to validate the average visible transmittance, quantum efficiency (IQE) approaches unity—this substitution
defined as[34] is made since the absorbance spectrum A (λ) is notoriously
difficult to measure directly. We note that a number of articles
∫ T ( λ ) P ( λ ) Γ AM1.5G ( λ ) dλ have reported photon balances with EQE(λ) + T(λ) > 100%,
AVT = (7)
∫ P ( λ ) Γ AM1.5G ( λ ) dλ indicating that either the EQE (thus Jsc) or T (thus AVT) are
overestimated.
where P(λ) is the photopic response of the human eye.[35] More- As a summary, Table 1 presents a list of minimal informa-
over, the aesthetic properties of transparent and semitrans- tion that should be included in a manuscript, or the corre-
parent cells should be reported, including the color rendering sponding supporting information, to be eligible for incorpora-
index (CRI) and/or the CIELab color coordinates (a*, b*). These tion in the below charts. Importantly, independent of possible
parameters can be directly obtained using T(λ), ΓAM1.5G(λ) and inclusion, these guidelines should also be considered impor-
the reflectance spectrum R(λ) (note that a calculator for these tant general guidelines for reliable reporting of PV perfor-
metrics is provided in “Data S1”[32] and the support section of mance metrics.
manuscript or in the supporting information of the published

E1000h article.
25 25 The Eg value for each report should be indicated in the man-
uscript, or supporting information, of the published article,
20 20 similarly to the procedure outlined in the previous section.
STEY (Wh cm-2)

To sum up, the last row in Table 1 comments on the required
PCE (%)
15 15 information to be considered for inclusion in future versions of

this survey.
10 10 Overall, these inclusion criteria encourage the generaliza-
E200h tion of best practices in the description and reproduction of
PCE
STEY published academic results. For this first version of the survey,
5 5
the rules have been applied with some discretion, but with clear
expectations to gain in rigor and robustness as they evolve with
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 the involvement of the community and the support of elec-
Time (h) tronic automated systems.
Figure 2. Stability test: efficiency (left axis) and stability test energy
yield (right axis) for 1000 h under 1 sun AM1.5G illumination with MPP
tracking. The data resemble that from a PSC reported by Zheng et al.[36] 2.3. Discarding Rules
“Reporting Device Efficiency of Emerging PV Materials” is

2.2. Best Stability Cells Criteria planned as an open access database following the FAIR princi-
ples.[37] This implies that the data must be findable, accessible,
The recommended stability test should be 1000 h under 1 sun inter-operable and reusable. A major concern is of course the
AM1.5G illumination, at a temperature of 85 °C, nitrogen quality of the data. We believe that the following principles are
atmosphere and MPP-tracking condition. The usage of UV fil- sufficient to maintain the highest standard in collecting data on
ters, either external or internal ones, their brand, type and cut new materials:
off wavelength, must be reported together with the brand and First, PCE values without explicit description of the J−V
type of the light source. Alternative testing conditions may only measurement conditions (i.e., light intensity, spectrum, suit-
vary in temperature, time or atmosphere. When testing in con- ably described cell area, and measurement instrument) nor
ditions other than dry nitrogen, the type of packaging or pro- EQE spectrum must be discarded. Specifically, differences of
tection utilized must be denoted. Further, information on the more than 10% between Jsc from J−V and EQE are considered
bias is essential. Degradation should be done under MPP con- as a discarding argument. For differences of between 5% and
ditions. In case of other conditions, such as short-circuit (SC), 10%, the lower efficiency value (i.e., associated with the lower
open-circuit (OC) or constant bias voltage, it is important to Jsc value) shall be reported.
report that. Second, the reports can also be discarded in the absence of
The main criteria for presenting the best research cells in evidence for evaluating the photovoltaic bandgap Eg. Similarly,
terms of overall performance stability would be the STEY value this applies with the values of AVT, substrate thickness/bending
from the integral in Equation (2), during the degradation test. radius and E200h/E1000h for the transparent, flexible, and stability
An example of the stability test and the energy integration is categories, respectively.
illustrated in Figure 2 for a 1000 h test. The best reports for
STEY would be presented for each effective device absorption
bandgap in two main categories: 200 and 1000 h stability tests, 2.4. Tie Rules
i.e., E200h and E1000h respectively.
In addition, the PCE values before and after 200 or 1000 h Aiming to summarize the best achievements in not-neces-
of stability testing (measured under standard illumination con- sarily certified-PCEs for emerging PV technologies, as pub-
ditions), as well as EQE verification, should be provided. This lished in academic articles, this survey focuses on the most
option of providing only the PCE before and after the stability efficient photovoltaic materials. Accordingly, there are two
test, rather than the full time-dependent data, can be useful for main uncertainties, associated with the reports on PCE and
those PV labs with difficulties in the instrumentation of MPP- Eg. The latter would always be considered as ±10 meV by
tracking algorithms and automatic device performance moni- default. Exceptionally, larger Eg uncertainties could be con-
toring during the stability test. sidered for devices with significantly gradual EQE absorption
The PCE versus time degradation plots should preferably be onset.
in efficiency units (not normalized). At a minimum, normalized For PCE values, the PCE uncertainty would always be con-
inline stability plots should be accompanied by the J−V curve sidered as ±0.5% by default. Then, at the same Eg, only a
under standard 1 sun AM1.5G illumination intensity before the second uncertified PCE record can be included if its average
beginning of the degradation test (and after 200 and/or 100 h). value is within ±0.5% of the best cell at Eg and/or above
In all cases, the measurement conditions (degradation state, some PCE for the records in the range Eg ±10 meV. Certi-
illumination intensity and spectrum, atmosphere, tempera- fied and uncertified records will be considered as separate
ture, details for the instrumentation) should be provided in the categories. Thus, up to four reports can be included at the
same Eg (two certified and two uncertified) if the above rule online websites for future automatic digital collection of the
is fulfilled. data.
For the photostability tests, the E200h and E1000h values would
follow a ±1 Wh cm−2 rule, similar to the PCE values, in addition
to the Eg ±10 meV earlier mentioned. The best semitransparent 3. Highest Efficiency Research Solar Cells
PVs will be considered as the highest PCE at each AVT (±1%),
and each Eg value (±10 meV). Analogously to the above rules, The best absolute achievements in emerging photovoltaics
at both the same AVT and Eg, only a second PCE record can are summarized in Figure 3 as a function of the photovoltaic
be included if its average value is within ±0.5% of the best cell bandgap, along with some established technologies and the
at AVT and Eg, and/or above some PCE for the records in the Shockley–Queisser[1] theoretical performance limit for a single
ranges AVT ±1% and Eg ±10 meV. junction assuming radiative emission from the front and rear
Importantly, these would be the tie rules for inclusion in side of the solar cell (solid line in Figure 3a).[29] Notably, only
the final tables for each article version. Full data, including all PSCs and established technologies such as silicon and thin
the available records at each Eg, is intended to be accessible in film CdTe and CIGS exceed the 55% of the SQ limit (dotted
the online database website emerging-pv.org, with visualization line in Figure 3a), and only GaAs-based single junction devices
tools permitting customizable selections. exceed 85% of the SQ limit (dashed line in Figure 3a). How-
ever, excepting some lower-PCE-CIGS-cells, these devices have
well-localized Eg values below 1.55 eV, which limits the Voc, as
2.5. Inclusion Methods presented in Figure 3b, and ultimately the color tunability of
the cells for some applications.
The data to be included in the following versions of this survey PSCs can be realized in a broader range of Eg values, which
can be incorporated via several methods. Primarily, we will is achieved by the modification of the perovskite composition.
systematically check in the literature for new developments. In this regard, one can identify four main regions or report
On the other hand, we urge the research community to take clusters in Figure 3. Below 1.5 eV, tin-based PSCs struggle to
an active role in the future updates of these reviews, by fol- overcome the 10% PCE. It is known that these devices still
lowing one of three approaches. First, the authors can submit suffer from considerable nonradiative recombination due to
data through a template in the online website emerging-pv.org morphology issues and band alignment mismatch, which
(see the Supporting Information). This is a dedicated database affects mainly Voc and FF, as in Figure 3b,c. Lead-free PSCs
collector under development which is intended to provide data represents a prioritized research direction, which may benefit
visualization functionalities in the future. Second, the authors all PV applications, in particular the indoor and wearable sec-
can send an email to report@emerging-pv.org with the attached tors. Nevertheless, aiming for a “taller efficiency roof,” some
data (see form in the online website emerging-pv.org). Finally, devices have already been reported PCE exceeding 20% at Eg
we also recommend including the form as a table in the sup- of ≈1.25 eV and ≈1.4 eV by tuning the cations (e.g., formami-
porting information of the published papers and/or in stable dinium, Cs, Sn) and/or anion (e.g., Br, Cl) compositions in
(a) (c) 100

Si a-Si GaAs
30 CdTe CIGS
CZTS Sb2Se3
DSSCs PSCs 80
PCE (%)
20 OPVs
FF (%)
60
10
40
0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Eg (eV) Eg (eV)
(b) (d)
2
40
Jsc (mA cm-2)
1.5 30
Voc (V)
20
1
10
0.5
0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Eg (eV) Eg (eV)
Figure 3. Highest efficiency solar cells: Performance parameters as a function of effective absorber bandgap for different photovoltaic technologies:
a) power conversion efficiency, b) open-circuit voltage, c) fill factor, and d) short-circuit current density. Experimental data are summarized in Section 10.1
and the solid, dashed and dotted lines indicate 100%, 85%, and 55% of the theoretical Shockley–Queisser efficiency limit,[29] respectively.
the perovskite with respect to the CH3NH3PbI3, herein called lowers the actual theoretical efficiency limit below the SQ tra-
mixed perovskites. ditional estimation.[38] Moreover, several devices with efficien-
High efficiency PSCs cluster around the region within 1.53 cies around 35% of SQ limit have been reported with Eg values
and 1.6 eV, which corresponds to the bandgaps for formami- from 1.4 to 2.4 eV, while best performing DSSCs show Eg values
dinium (FA) and methylammonium (MA) lead iodide perov- within 1.8–2.1 eV. Interestingly, in the latter range these devices
skites, FAPbI3 and MAPbI3, respectively. These devices are are able to surpass OPVs in terms of Voc. Importantly, some Jsc
the result of considerable optimizations regarding perovskite values in Figure 3d reach and even exceed the SQ limit, sug-
composition and morphology, and selective contacts, which at gesting firstly that these particular cells are not properly suited
the moment report a certified PCE record of 25.2% efficiency. to the single-junction SQ limit model and, secondly, that the
Interestingly, this “hero” perovskite-cell is closer to the photo presence of artifacts cannot be disregarded in the estimation Jsc
voltage radiative limit than the best crystalline silicon cell, from the J − V curve and/or the Eg from the EQE. The latter can
which is most likely related with the advantage of having a be particularly challenging for most of DSSCs where a graded
direct bandgap, a situation closer to that of the GaAs cell. EQE spectrum is found, instead of “straight” abrupt steps as in
High photovoltage perovskite cells are enabled as the bro- Figure 1. Furthermore, the kesterite family of emerging inor-
mide substitutes for iodide in the perovskite composition. ganic solar cells (CZTS), typically using Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4, and
Here, several devices based on the organometallic FAPbBr3 and the Sb2Se3-based devices are also presented in Figure 3. These
MAPbBr3, and the inorganic CsPbBr3 have already reported Voc more recently emerging technologies are showing best perfor-
values higher than 1.5 V with efficiencies above 10%. The latter mances below 40% of the SQ limit, mainly because of large
is ≈70% of SQ limit, while the Jsc seems to be almost at full SQ photocurrent losses.
limit in Figure 3d. Interestingly, in the region between 1.95 and The relative performance in terms of the SQ limit is better
2.3 eV several proofs of concept for new perovskite composi- observed in Figure 4, by using the SQ performance ratio
tions have also been proposed. defined by Guillemoles et al.[39] as
Best organic solar cells seem to perform better as the Eg
J screal Vocreal FF0 (Voc ) FFreal
real
decreases from 1.9 to 1.3 eV in Figure 3a. This trend probably PCEreal (9)
=
relates to the difficulty of OPVs to increase photovoltage, a pres- PCESQ J scSQ VocSQ FF0 (VocSQ ) FF0 (Vocreal )
ently limiting consequence of the donor–acceptor bulk heter-
ojunction design. Figure 3b suggests that Voc > 1.0 V is rarely where the “real” and “SQ” superscripts respectively indicate the
reported for the most efficient OPV devices, independently of experimental and ideal SQ limit values for each magnitude and
the active material’s bandgap. Moreover, FF and Jsc follow the the theoretical SQ fill factor comes from[39]
more typical trends in Figure 3c,d.
Dye sensitized solar cells are third in terms of overall PCE qVoc  qV 
− ln  oc + 0.72
values, after PSCs and OPVs, but the second regarding the kT  kBT 
breadth of Eg values, after PSCs. This is relatively “expected” FF0 (Voc ) = B (10)
qVoc
due to the significant potential-losses in these devices, which 1+
kBT
(a) 100 (c) 100

90 Jreal
sc 80
GaAs
Percentage of SQ efficiency
80
JSQ PSC Si
sc
70 CIGS 60
60 Jreal real
sc Voc CdTe
50 JSQ SQ
sc Voc
40
OPV
DSSC
40 Jreal real
sc Voc FF0(Voc )
real
JSQ V SQ
FF SQ Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4
sc oc 0 oc )
(V
30 PCE real a-Si:H 20 Organic photovoltaic solar cells
PCESQ Sb2Se3
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
(b) (d) Eg (eV)
100 100
80 80
60
60
40
40
20
Perovskite solar cells Dye sensitized solar cells

20
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3
Eg (eV) Eg (eV)
Figure 4. Percentage of SQ efficiency as Equation (9) limit for a) the most efficient cells for each PV technology and as a function of bandgap for
b) PSCs, c) OPVs, and d) DSSCs. Experimental data are summarized in Section 10.1. No tie rules (see Section 2.4) were considered for this data selec-
tion, only the highest efficiency at each Eg.
Subsequently, one can distribute the performance in within the range 1.47–1.65 eV. This focus has already allowed
logarithmic fractions that parameterize the losses of photo- for reports with over 19% PCE, approaching 65% of the SQ
voltage, photocurrent, fill factor (Voc) and fill factor (resis- limit (dashed line in Figure 5a). Interestingly, flexible PSCs
tive), respectively. This concept is presented in Figure 4a for provide the absolute photovoltage champions in Figure 5b,
the best devices in each PV technology, and as a function of since Voc > 1.0 V has not yet been achieved for the flexible
bandgap for the three main emerging PV technologies in GaAs cells. Notably, among established flexible PV technolo-
Figure 4b–d. Comparing all the PV technologies, in Figure 4a, gies,[44] while GaAs remains the most efficient flexible single
illustrates how most of highest efficiency inorganics (CTZSS, junction solar cell, flexible CIGS cells[45] significantly outper-
CdTe, CIGS, Si) and DSSCs mainly suffer from photovoltage form other technologies (i.e., Si and CdTe devices).
loss. Also, best devices for a-Si:H, OPVs and, PSCs lose effi- Flexible OPVs[46] yield peak efficiency at Eg ≈ 1.4 eV, with
ciency due to photovoltage and photocurrent fails similarly, a reported PCE of above 15%, which is almost 50% of the
while the GaAs hero cell would mainly need photocurrent SQ limit. However, most of the remaining emerging flexible
optimization. PV technologies are below 10% PCE (below 40% of the SQ
Comparing the three main emerging PV technologies, in limit), including all the flexible DSSCs.[47] For the latter type of
Figure 4b–d, the parametrization indicates major photocurrent device, the use of the N719 dye sensitizer seems to be the most
and photovoltage losses in OPVs and DSSCs, while most effi- common approach.
cient PSCs are suffering more from resistive issues. Interest-
ingly, for high bandgap PSCs, the best performing cells are
almost as close to the SQ limit as those with a bandgap around 5. Transparent and Semitransparent PVs:
that of MAPbI3, and whilst the latter suffer from photocurrent
Best Research Solar Cells
losses, the high bandgap PSCs are mostly affected by photo-
voltage losses. Another particularly interesting subject in this survey is the
development of transparent and semitransparent solar cells for
applications such as PV-windows and PV-lamp cases. Integrated
4. Flexible PVs: Best Research Solar Cells photovoltaics in an industry scale is one of the long-sought
goals in the PV community to extend the reach of PV systems
The subject of flexible PVs has been recently tackled in sev- and to minimize the “food versus fuel” tradeoff.[48] Integrating
eral reviews;[40–47] here the focus is set on showing PCE versus power generation into our daily live is as such a tremendously
Eg. The performance of flexible PV devices in Figure 5 seems important technological step to accelerate the energy transi-
to mirror the high-efficiency clusters for each technology in tion from fossil to renewable. Transparent and semitransparent
Figure 3. Obviously, it makes sense to take the most consoli- research cells have recently emerged to help fill this role and
dated device designs when targeting further applications like enable PV deployment in entirely new areas and applications.
fabrication of PVs on thinner flexible substrates. They have been reviewed recently by several authors,[49–55] and
For flexible PSCs,[41–43] the devices include mixed perov- so here we present a comprehensive comparison between dif-
skites with well-established good-performing properties and Eg ferent technologies in Figure 6.
(a) (c)
Si a-Si GaAs CdTe
CIGS PSCs OPVs DSSCs
80
20
PCE (%)
FF (%)
60
10
40
0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Eg (eV) Eg (eV)
(b) (d)
λg (nm) λg (nm)
1200 1000 800 600 1200 1000 800 600
1.5 40
Jsc (mA cm-2)
Voc (V)
30
1.0
20
0.5 10
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Eg (eV) Eg (eV)
Figure 5. Flexible PVs: Best performance parameters as a function of absorber bandgap for various photovoltaic technologies: a) power conversion
efficiency, b) open circuit voltage, c) fill factor, and d) short-circuit current density. Experimental data are summarized in Section 10.2 and the solid,
dashed and dotted lines indicate 100%, 65%, and 50% of the theoretical Shockley–Queisser efficiency limit,[29] respectively.
(a) 30
(d)
SQ-NWS CdTe 15
20 CIGS
PCE (%)
PCE (%)
a-Si:H 10
10 DSSCss SQ-NWS
55%
PSCs 5
100
50
OPVss
AVT (%) 2.5 3 0
0 1.5 2 0 25 50 75 100
Eg (eV)
AVT (%)
(b) (e)
SQ
20
4 35%
Jsc (mA cm-2)

LUE (%)
15%
2 10
0 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 0 25 50 75 100
Eg (eV) AVT (%)
(c) 8 (f)
1
6
LUE (%)
Voc (V)
SQ-NWS
4 0.8
55%
2
0.6
0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
AVT (%) AVT (%)
Figure 6. Best performing transparent and semitransparent PVs: a) highest power conversion efficiency as a function of device bandgap energy and
average visible transmittance (3D representation); corresponding light utilization efficiency versus b) photovoltaic bandgap energy and c) average
visible transmittance; and d) power conversion efficiency, e) short-circuit current density and f) open-circuit voltage as a function of average vis-
ible transmittance. Experimental data are summarized in Section 10.3. The blue surface in (a) indicates the theoretical Shockley–Queisser limit for
non-wavelength selective PVs and the dotted, dash-dotted, dashed and solid lines in (b–d) indicate the corresponding projected 15%, 35%, 55%,
and 100%, respectively. Note that the right most PSC point in (b,c) only has a CRI of 62, whereas most of the OPV devices are typically between a
CRI of 80–95.
A general classification of transparent and semitrans- reported transparent and semitransparent devices use previ-
parent solar cells separates i) non-wavelength selective (NWS), ously optimized absorber materials (see absolute records in
absorbing across the solar spectrum via spatially segmenting Figure 3), clustering around their respective Eg values. The
traditional PVs or by make traditional PVs ultrathin to enable latter is best appreciated in Figure 6b, where the light utili-
partial light transmission; and ii) “wavelength selective” (WS), zation efficiency (LUE = AVT · PCE)[55] is presented as a
absorbing preferentially the invisible part of the solar spectrum function of the bandgap energy. For instance, one can see that
via discrete molecular orbitals. This classification is important the LUE values for most of the reports are below the SQ limit
as each of these two approaches have fundamentally different for 15% AVT (taking AVT as percentage and PCE as absolute).
SQ limits.[34] Complementary and irrespective of the Eg values, one can also
Analogously to our previous analyses, Figure 6a presents display the LUE versus AVT and the corresponding SQ limit
the best efficiency research cells as a function of the Eg and for NWS PVs as in Figure 6c, showing most of the reports
the AVT. Note that, in contrast to opaque devices, here the SQ below 55%.
limit for NWS-PVs (blue surface in Figure 6a) is a function of Comparing with more traditional semitransparent thin
both Eg and AVT,[34] thus the 3D representation can be more film solar cells, like a-Si:H and CIGS, Figure 6 illustrates the
useful in combination with the corresponding plane projec- advantage of emerging photovoltaics. The established inor-
tions. Similarly to flexible PVs in Figure 5, most of the best ganic technologies have been reported with efficiencies below
10% and AVT values less than 26%. Note that, despite some in this category as they can enable the highest LUE of any
research on semitransparent CdTe cells,[50] to the knowledge transparent or semitransparent PV by exploiting wavelength
of the authors, only one report with efficiency below 1% selective absorption around the visible spectrum due to their
can be analyzed in terms of the corresponding AVT and Eg molecular orbital nature. Accordingly, they have reached effi-
values. ciencies ranging from 8.32% PCE at 50% AVT [56] to 1.2% at
Semitransparent PSCs[52,53] have been reported with effi- AVT of 75%.[57]
ciencies ranging from 3.6% at 47% of AVT to PCE as high as
17.5% at 10% of AVT. Here the control of both absorber thick-
ness and composition are typical strategies. Interestingly, 6. Stability in Emerging Research Solar Cells
unlike the absolute records in Figure 3 and the best flexible
solar cells in Figure 5, PSCs are not such clear leaders for The stability of emerging PVs is of paramount importance for
semitransparent and transparent applications. OPVs[54] pre- the commercialization of any of these emerging technologies
sent comparable and even larger PCE values than PSCs, for perhaps, despite being the subject with least extensive data,
some transparency ranges, e.g. AVT > 40%. The PSCs fail likely owing to the care and effort needed to undertake these
to provide larger values of photocurrent in Figure 6e, while studies effectively. Research publications on degradation of
semitransparent OPVs show limitations for reporting Voc emerging PVs are not as many as one would possibly like[58–62]
values ≥1.0 V in Figure 6f, for almost the entire AVT range. and, more troublingly, the proper description of the stability
Semitransparent DSSCs, on the other hand, seem to remain tests is not often found. Most reports present normalized anal-
in the “third position” with efficiencies hardly above 10% and yses that focus only on trends, omitting the data regarding the
mainly below 30% of AVT. OPVs offer a unique advantage initial performance parameters.
Figure 7. Most photostable emerging PVs for each technology: stability test energy yield for a) 200 h and d) 1000 h as a function of bandgap energy,
final power conversion efficiency after b) 200 h and e) 1000 h as a function of the initial value, and overall degradation rate (Equation (3)) as a func-
tion of initial power conversion efficiency for c) 200 h and f) 1000 h. The experimental data is summarized in Section 10.4 and the solid, dot-dashed
and dashed lines in (a,d) indicate 100%, 70% and 40% of the theoretical Shockley–Queisser limit,[29] respectively. The diagonal dot-dot-dashed lines in
(b,e) indicate where the final efficiencies equal the initial ones. The positive values above the horizontal dotted line in (c,f) represent increase of PCE
with respect to the initial values.
On the overall performance, the most stable PSCs in The absolute best efficiency reports in Figure 8a show, in
Figure 7 provide above twice more output energy than most of the first place, that most of the PV research is mainly focused
the presented OPVs and DSSCs during 200 and 1000 h under on emerging rather than on established technologies. On the
simulated 1 sun operation. However, the lack of well-described former technologies, OPV and PSCs with device bandgap
stability studies in OPVs performing above 15% PCE (see energies within the range 1.35–1.61 eV seem to be “trending
Figure 3) is admittedly a weak spot in this representation. topic,” while just the opposite within 1.63–1.75 eV. Flexible
Moreover, most stable PSCs are close to 70% of the SQ limit and semitransparent device research, in Figure 8b,c respec-
(dot-dashed line Figure 3a,d), while the rest of the technologies tively, suggest the OPV technology as the “hottest” among
are below 40% (dashed line Figure 3a,d). the emerging PVs. Interestingly, from Figure 8c it looks like
Interestingly, it is also evident that the first 200 h of opera- the research community has been losing interest on semi-
tion can be significantly unstable for emerging photovoltaics. transparent PSCs during the last 2 years. Finally, the sta-
This is more evident by presenting the efficiencies after deg- bility reports (attending to our selection criteria for Figures 7
radation and the degradation rate as a function of the initial and 8d) have mostly been reported during the last 3 years over
PCE values. Final versus initial efficiencies (in Figure 7b,e) devices whose bandgap energy is currently “trending topic”
evidence how most of the devices keep or increase their (around 2 years later).
efficiency during the first 200 h (dots above/over the x = y
diagonal line) but later show significant losses within 1000 h
of stability testing (dots below the x = y diagonal line). In 8. A Critical Outlook
terms of overall degradation rate, as defined in Equation (3),
most of the cells degrade between two and eight times faster Despite the interesting and useful content of the presented
within the first 200 h than considering 1000 h of test (in data and analyses, we are aware of several limitations and/
Figure 7c,f ). Interestingly, DSSCs show a more common or possibly critical issues, which will hopefully evolve into
trend to increase efficiency as operation time augments up creative solutions for the future. First, some debate is to be
to 1000 h, despite this rate of PCE increase is anyway dimin- expected regarding our inclusion criteria and methods. For
ished with time. instance, we neglect the evaluation of metrics for analyzing
best achievements for low cost and environmentally friendly
devices. Moreover, even for the categories described in
7. The Time Evolution Section 2, the large volume of online publications and the
variegated structure of research articles may have hindered
Most directly complementing NREL’s chart,[7] the publication the inclusion of all the already available data in the literature.
year of the above presented reports are summarized in Figure 8 Hopefully, the summoning of the research community will
for each of the four previous sections. This representation is not contribute to correcting and updating future versions of this
only illustrating on the topicality of each research field/section, survey.
but also attempts to provide an eye-catching tool for the readers The certification and the reliability of the reported values
to identify possible missing reports. is another vital subject in our discussion. Our intention here
(a) (c)
Best Efficiency
2020 2020
Year
Year
2015 Si a-Si 2015

GaAs CdTe
CIGS PSCs
OPVs DSSCs
CZTS Sb2Se3 Transparent/Semitransparent PVs
2010 2010
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 0 10 20 30 40 70
Eg (eV) AVT (%)
(b) (d)
Flexible PVs Stability reports
2020 2020
Year
Year
2015 2015
2010 2010
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 5 10 15 20
Eg (eV) Eg (eV) Initial PCE (%)
Figure 8. Publication year of the reports summarized in previous sections: a) absolute highest efficiency solar cells, b) best flexible, and c) semitrans-
parent/transparent devices, and d) stability reports.
is to motivate the community to discuss new and broader the long-term performance of solar cells. The priority for
certification methods. Particularly, we highlight the impact of the upcoming versions of this survey is to list an increased
certified stability tests, while other procedures like the AVT number of reports fulfilling our inclusion criteria. Subse-
evaluation could be certified as well. Ideally, we could provide quently, the goal would be to conduct more specific anal-
in the future independent graphs with certified reports as abun- yses attending different measurement conditions, targeting
dant as the uncertified charts. specific operating modes and/or the effects on each indi-
The data quality and specifically reproducibility is another vidual element of the devices.
of our major concerns. While hard to evaluate in this first Other emerging solar cells, including inorganic absorbers,[64]
version, we expect for those records with practical reproduc- quantum dots,[65] and multi-junction devices will also be con-
ibility to be updated and/or significantly approached in fol- sidered for inclusion in future versions of this survey. In each
lowing versions of this survey. Hopefully, we would be able case, it is still pending to define the best categories and repre-
to include subsequent contributions from those authors who sentations to be incorporated into the database website and the
have reported achievements as good or better than those published articles.
reviewed here, but were neglected due to the lack of descrip-
tion (e.g., no EQE, no AVT, no initial PCE in stability). In this
regard, we intend to implement a “gold” category system for 9. Conclusions
automatically labeling each report with the highest detail pro-
vided in the description for the database website emerging-pv. In summary, the present review has illustrated the benefit
org. We further intend to provide information on the repro- of reporting power conversion efficiency as a function of the
ducibility and even introduce a “reproducibility factor,” e.g., in absorber material bandgap for the main emerging photo-
case several groups independently from each other can repro- voltaic technologies: perovskite, organic and dye sensitized
duce a specific result. We also intend to categorize data in solar cells. Focused on the absorber materials, parametrized
terms of the production processing technology, highlighting through the effective device bandgap, the absolute record
differences in lab efficiency (spin coated in N2) versus indus- efficiencies were shown to be led by the PSCs in the widest
trial efficiency (printed in air). These and further specifica- range of photovoltaic bandgap, competing with established
tions would allow the community to discern between poorly technologies like silicon and thin film inorganics. The sys-
and adequately described reports, and hopefully motivate best tematic development of high bandgap emerging photo
practices. voltaics serves as a guideline for the future implementation
The hysteresis in the J−V curve of PSCs[9,63] is another of tandem solar cells. Moreover, the best flexible solar cells
intensely discussed issue for reports on best efficiencies. Even were also summarized, indicating again some competition
the certified reports may be affected by measurement artifacts between PSCs and established technologies like CIGS. On
if there is no appropriate MPP tracking,[13] or other stabilized the other hand, the best transparent and semitransparent
J−V measurement such as low scan rate continuous sweep[26] research cells, with average visible transmittance values
or dynamic asymptotic methods.[25] For instance, future “gold- above and below 50%, respectively, are being led by two
reports” would include at least a 5 min MPP tracking test as a emerging technologies OPVs and PSCs that have already
basic endorsement of the reported PCE values, along with the reported efficiencies significantly larger than those from
EQE spectrum and a second PCE value measured 24 h after the CIGS and a-Si:H devices. Subsequently, we presented an ini-
first J−V characteristic. tial sample of the output energy values from stability tests
A convenient standard flexibility test for the PV devices of emerging PV cells under 1 sun simulated illumination
is a pending discussion in the community. The focus in this after 200 and 1000 h. Despite the limited and irregularity of
survey would be for reporting initial device performance under the data, it can be seen that the behavior of high efficiency
bending and performance after a series of bending cycles (BC). emerging PV technologies is encouraging. We hope this
For instance, an early proposal would be to measure the PCE effort will help to grow and nurture a “forest of emerging
under standard illumination conditions followed by an inline PV materials” in every version of our best emerging research
MPP tracking as a function of the minimum bending radius cells reports.
(rb) and BC, until the PCE decreases 5% of the initial value
(PCE0). Alternatively, the J−V characteristic could be taken
for the smaller rb and after as many BC as possible, provided 10. Tables (Tables 2–17)
that the PCE is still >5% of PCE0. Thus, one could analyze the
highest bendable efficiency HBEr = PCE0 /rb and the bending The below tables list the reports on best achievements in most
efficiency lifetime BEL = PCE0 × BC. However, the bending of the stablished and emerging PV technologies as a function
geometry and bending rate could significantly modify the test of the device bandgap Eg. Unless noted, the Eg were estimated
outcomes, and also a selection of a maximum number of BC by fitting the absorption threshold region of the corresponding
may be considered. EQE spectra to Equation (5), as illustrated with Figure 1 in
The stability test conditions are also a subject of discus- Section 2.1.
sion in the future. Among the several already existing In the case of PCE reports of PSCs showing hysteresis
standards,[16,17] as well as other possible alternatives, the behavior in the J−V characteristic, while sweeping voltage in
PV research community is still missing a consensus on the different directions and/or scan rates, the lower PCE value has
most representative and practical protocols for evaluating been considered in each case.
10.1. Highest Efficiency Research Solar Cells Tables
Table 2. Best perovskite research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber perovskite Ref.
1.25 20.7 843 30.6 80.2 (FASnI3)0.6(MAPbI3)0.4 [66]

1.26 20.4 834 30.5 80.2 GuaSCN:(FASnI3)0.6(M [67]
APbI3)0.4
1.26 19.0 888 28.8 74.5 (FASnI3)0.6(MAPbI3)0.34(MA [68]
PbBr3)0.06
1.27 20.9 827 31.4 80.5 MA0.3FA0.7Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [69]
1.28 20.3 850 30.2 79.1 FA0.5MA0.45Cs0.05Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [70]
1.28 18.4 780 32.8 72.0 Cs0.025FA0.475MA0.5Sn0.5Pb0.5I3 [71]
1.29 16.0 771 29.3 70.8 FASn0.5Pb0.5I3 [72]
1.29 15.9 770 26.5 78.0 (FASnI3)0.6(MAPbI3)0.3(MA [73]
PbBr3)0.1
1.30 13.8 660 29.0 72.1 FA0.5MA0.5Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [74]
1.31 5.0 420 23.8 50.3 CsSnI3 [75]a)
1.31 7.1 486 22.9 64.0 MASnI3 [76]a)
1.31 14.1 740 26.7 71.4 FA0.75Cs0.25Sn0.5Pb0.5I3 [77]
1.32 11.6 720 23.4 68.9 MAPb0.4Sn0.6I2.8Br0.2 [78]
1.34 10.0 767 20.5 63.6 MAPb0.4Sn0.6I3 [79]
1.34 12.1 780 20.7 75.1 MAPb0.4Sn0.6I2.6Br0.4 [78]
1.35 16.3 780 26.5 79.0 FAPb0.7Sn0.3I3 [80]
1.37 14.7 737 27.1 73.6 FA0.3MA0.7Pb0.7Sn0.3I3 [81]
1.38 17.3 810 28.2 75.4 FAPb0.75Sn0.25I3 [82]
1.38 15.2 800 26.2 72.5 MAPb0.75Sn0.25I3 [83]
1.39 20.6 1020 26.6 76.0 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.7Sn0.3I3 [84]
1.40 8.2 745 17.8 61.8 MAPb0.6Sn0.4I3 [79]
1.40 7.8 570 20.7 66.2 MASnI3 [85]
1.41 5.9 487 20.0 60.6 FA1−xRbxSnI3 [86]
1.42 14.4 820 22.4 78.0 MAPb0.75Sn0.25I3 [87]
1.43 10.4 772 20.3 66.4 MAPb0.7Sn0.3I3 [88]
1.44 10.2 630 21.6 74.7 FASnI3 [89]
1.44 9.4 606 21.1 73.4 FASnI3 [89]b)
1.42 13.2 840 20.3 78.0 (FA0.9EA0.1)0.98EDA0.01SnI3 [90]
1.51 19.3 1047 23.8 77.5 FA0.6MA0.4PbI3 [91]
1.52 22.0 1120 24.9 78.6 FA0.85MA0.15PbI3 [92]
1.53 23.7 1144 26.7 77.6 α-FAPbI3:MDACl2 [93]b)
1.53 23.3 1180 25.2 78.4 FA1−xMAxPbI3 [94]b)
1.53 18.6 1050 24.1 73.5 FAPbI3 [95]a)
1.53 21.6 1110 24.6 79.2 FA0.95Cs0.05PbI3 [96]
1.54 24.6 1181 26.2 79.6 FAPbI3 [97]b)
1.54 22.1 1105 25.0 80.3 (FAPbI3)0.9(MAPbBr3)0.1 [98]b)
1.55 21.5 1160 23.4 79.2 Cs0.05FA0.70MA0.25PbI3-DAP [99]
1.56 25.2 1180 24.1 84.8 c) [4]b)
1.56 22.7 1145 24.9 79.9 (FAPbI3)0.95(MAPbBr3)0.05 [100]b)
1.56 20.9 1116 24.0 78.0 (FAPbI3)1−x(MAPbBr3)x [101]b)
1.56 19.7 1075 23.7 77.3 (MA0.7FA0.3)0.97EDA0.015PbI3 [102]
Table 2. Continued.
1.57 23.0 1170 24.1 81.6 Cs0.05(FA0.92MA0.08)0.95 [36]

Pb(I0.92Br0.08)3
1.57 22.3 1143 23.8 82.0 Cs0.05(FA0.92MA0.08)0.95Pb(I0 [36]b)
.92Br0.08)3
1.57 20.6 1120 22.8 80.5 (FAPbI3)1−x(MAPbBr3)x [103]

1.58 22.6 1186 24.2 78.6 (FAPbI3)0.92(MAPbBr3)0.08 [104]b)
1.58 20.4 1125 23.3 77.8 Cs0.05(FAPbI3)0.85 [105]
(MAPbBr3)0.15
1.58 21.9 1120 24.2 80.6 FA0.15MA0.85PbI3 [106]
1.59 21.1 1086 24.0 81.0 MAPb0.9Sn0.05Cu0.05I2.9Br0.1 [107]
1.59 21.0 1140 23.7 77.7 FA0.85MA0.15Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [108]b)
1.60 20.3 1130 23.2 77.4 MAPbI3−xClx [109]b)
1.61 20.5 1110 25.1 73.5 MAPbI3 [106]b)
1.61 21.6 1140 24.9 76.1 Cs0.05(MA0.17FA0.83)0.95 [110]
Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3
1.61 22.6 1200 24.0 78.5 Cs0.07Rb0.03FA0.765MA0.135Pb [111]
I2.55Br0.45
1.62 21.7 1180 22.5 81.7 MAPbI3-DAP [99]
1.63 20.3 1130 23.4 76.8 Cs0.05FA0.76MA0.19PbBr0.6I2.4 [112]
1.64 20.4 1140 23.6 75.8 Cs0.05(MA0.17FA0.83)0.95Pb(I0 [110]
.83Br0.17)3
1.65 16.2 1109 19.6 74.2 MAPbI1−xBrx [113]b)

1.66 10.4 904 16.3 70.4 MAPb(I0.87Br0.13)3 [114]
1.67 8.2 890 13.9 65.8 MAPb(I0.88Br0.12)3 [115]
1.68 20.7 1220 21.3 79.7 Cs0.05MA0.15FA0.8Pb(I0.75B [116]
r0.25)3
1.69 7.1 936 10.4 63.0 MAPb(I0.74Br0.26)3 [117]
1.70 16.9 1170 20.2 71.5 Cs0.2FA0.8Pb(I0.75Br0.25)3 [116]
1.71 12.5 1070 15.4 75.5 MA0.85Cs0.15Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [118]
1.72 18.6 1244 19.2 77.9 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI2.2Br0.8 [119]
1.72 17.1 1200 19.4 73.5 FA0.83Cs0.17Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 [120]
1.74 18.3 1269 18.9 76.3 Rb0.05Cs0.095MA0.1425FA0.712 [121]
5PbI2Br
1.75 19.8 1310 19.4 78.0 FA0.83Cs0.17Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 [122]

1.76 18.5 1210 20.0 76.4 (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I [123]
0.6Br0.4)3
1.77 18.6 1234 18.3 82.5 CsPbI3−xBrx [124]

1.78 15.7 1210 18.4 70.5 Cs0.17FA0.83Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 [116]
1.79 19.0 1250 19.0 80.0 Cs0.12MA0.05FA0.83Pb(I0.6B [116]
r0.4)3
1.79 16.5 1284 17.2 74.8 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI1.8Br1.2 [119]
1.80 13.7 1272 14.4 75.0 MAPbBrI2 [125]
1.81 16.3 1220 17.0 78.6 FA0.6Cs0.4Pb(I0.65Br0.35)3 [70]
1.82 17.1 1100 21.0 74.0 FAPbI1.5Br1.5/CsPbI1.5Br1.5 [126]
1.83 3.3 1020 5.7 56.9 Cs2TiBr6 [127]a)
1.83 8.6 1110 11.3 68.4 MA0.85Cs0.15Pb(I0.65Br0.35)3 [118]
1.84 15.2 1260 15.6 77.3 Cs0.2FA0.8Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3-DAP [99]
1.85 15.0 1296 15.6 74.2 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI1.5Br1.5 [119]
1.86 17.0 1340 15.9 79.8 CsPb(I0.75Br0.25)3-0.5FAOAc [128]
Table 2. Continued.
1.87 14.0 1280 14.0 78.1 CsPb0.8Ba0.2I2Br [129]
1.87 13.7 1220 14.6 76.8 CsPb0.95Eu0.05I2Br [130]
1.88 15.3 1250 15.4 79.0 CsPbI2Br [131]
1.89 15.6 1300 15.3 78.3 CsPbI2−xBr(Ac)x [132]
1.90 16.1 1320 15.3 79.7 CsPbI2Br [133]
1.91 14.4 1312 15.6 70.1 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI1.2Br1.8 [119]
1.91 13.5 1177 14.3 79.9 CsPbI2Br [134]
1.91 2.0 620 5.4 60.8 MA3Sb2I9+HI [135]b)
1.94 4.3 630 10.7 63.8 Ag3BiI6 [136]
1.94 2.2 670 5.2 62.7 AgBiI4 [137]
1.95 2.6 690 6.0 62.4 AgBiI5 [137]
1.97 1.1 850 2.2 59.6 Cs3Bi2I9 [138]
1.98 8.3 1080 12.3 62.0 CsPbIBr2 [139]
2.00 9.6 1185 11.2 72.3 Cs0.15FA0.85Pb(I0.3Br0.7)3 [140]
2.03 2.8 836 6.4 52.7 MAPb(I0.41Br0.59)3 [115]
2.04 10.3 1340 9.7 79.2 MAPb(I0.3Br0.7)xCl3−x(Br) [141]
2.05 6.1 1450 5.4 77.1 MAPbIBr2 [142]
2.09 10.2 1270 11.5 69.4 CsPbIBr2 [143]
2.10 10.7 1261 11.8 72.0 CsPbIBr2 [144]
2.11 9.2 1200 10.2 74.6 GAI-DEE-CsPbIBr2 [145]
2.14 3.1 650 8.1 58.4 MASbSI2 [146]
2.15 4.4 1084 6.3 64.8 (FA0.85MA0.15Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3) [147]

R = 0.7
2.19 2.0 1051 3.0 69.5 (FA0.85MA0.15Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3) [147]

R = 0.56
2.20 1.2 610 3.6 55.9 Cs3Sb2I9 [148]
2.27 10.6 1552 8.9 76.5 FAPbBr3 [149]
2.31 9.7 1458 8.12 81.9 CsPbBr3 [150]
2.32 10.1 1653 7.72 79.1 MAPbBr3 [125]
2.33 8.2 1470 7.3 76.1 CsPbBr3 [151]
2.34 9.7 1584 7.4 82.8 CsPbBr3 [152]
2.35 10.7 1622 7.9 83.5 CsPbBr3 [153]
2.35 10.6 1610 7.8 84.4 CsSnBr3 [154]
2.36 4.0 1130 5.5 63.6 CsPbBr2.9I0.1 [155]
2.37 2.2 690 5.0 63.5 MA3Sb2ClxI9−x [156]
2.38 8.1 1490 6.9 78.8 CsPbBr3 [157]
2.39 10.3 1580 8.2 80.0 Cs0.91Rb0.09PbBr3 [158]
2.42 1.1 870 2.9 43.0 BdAPbI4 [159]
2.43 2.8 820 5.7 60.3 CsPb2Br5 [160]
2.44 2.4 1140 3.4 60.9 FAPbBr2.1Cl0.9 [161]
2.46 1.7 1060 3.9 40.2 Cs2AgBiBr6 [162]
2.48 1.4 1060 2.5 52.0 FAPbBr2Cl [161]
a)Exception included as a material highlight; b)Certified efficiency; MA: methylammonium; FA: formamidinium; c)Exception included as a PCE highlight but missing the
absorber information.
Table 3. Best organic research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber blend Ref.
1.32 10.6 690 24.3 63.2 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [163]
1.34 12.8 712 27.3 65.9 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [164]
1.34 9.7 695 19.8 70.2 PBDTT-DPP:IEICO-4F [165]
1.35 14.3 802 26.8 66.5 PBDB-T-2Cl:BTP-4F:PC61BM [166]
1.36 15.9 846 25.4 74.1 PM6:Y11 [167]a)
1.37 13.6 820 26.5 62.6 PM6:Y6 [168]
1.38 17.3 841 26.2 78.5 PBDB-TF:BTP-eC9 [169]a)
1.39 18.2 859 27.7 76.6 D18:Y6 [170]a)
1.39 17.0 858 77.6 25.5 PBDB-TF:BTP-4Cl-12 [171]a)
1.39 16.6 860 25.4 76.3 PBDB-TF:AQx-2 [172]
1.40 17.0 840 26.0 77.8 PBDB-T-2F:Y6:PC71BM [173]
1.40 17.1 834 26.4 77.6 PM6:Y6 [174]a)
1.40 16.5 867 25.4 75.0 PBDB-TF:BTP-4Cl [175]a)
b)
1.41 17.4 862 25.8 77.9 [4]a)
1.42 15.6 834 24.9 75.1 PBDB-TF:BTP-4F [175]
b) [176]a)
1.42 15.6 838 25.0 74.4
1.43 14.3 820 24.9 70.0 PM6:IDST-4F [177]
1.44 13.6 920 21.4 69.1 PBDB-TF:BTIC-F-m [178]
1.46 12.9 852 21.5 70.6 PM6:N-C11 [179]
1.47 14.6 882 23.1 71.7 PBDB-T-2Cl:BP-4F:MF1 [180]
1.48 12.4 880 20.8 67.7 PBDB-T:IDT-EDOT:PC71BM [181]
1.50 15.4 920 22.6 74.1 PM6:DTTC-4Cl [182]
1.51 13.3 780 22.9 75.0 PM6:SeTlC4Cl-DIO [183]
1.52 10.4 850 18.0 68.0 PBDB-T:IDT-EDOT:PC71BM [181]
1.53 10.7 850 22.2 56.7 PM6:SeTlC4Cl [183]
1.54 13.6 940 19.5 73.8 BTR:NITI:PC71BM [184]
1.55 12.0 840 19.5 73.3 PM6:IT-4F [185]
1.56 12.1 826 20.9 70.1 PBDB-T-2F:IT-4F [186]
1.58 13.9 950 21.7 67.4 PM6:DTTC-4F [182]
1.58 13.5 880 20.6 74.53 PBDB-T-SF:IT-4F [173]
1.61 13.4 940 20.2 70.5 PM6:DTC-4F [182]
1.61 12.1 916 18.1 73.0 PBDB-T-2Cl:MF1 [180]
b)
1.62 11.0 793 19.4 71.5 [187]a)
1.62 12.2 930 17.5 75.0 PTQ10:IDTPC [188]
1.63 12.8 910 19.1 73.6 PTQ10:IDIC-2F [189]
1.64 12.9 960 17.4 71.3 PTQ10:IDIC [189]
1.65 9.3 820 16.5 68.7 J51:ITIC [190]
b)
1.66 12.1 815 20.3 73.2 [191]a)
1.67 10.2 810 21.0 59.9 P4TIF:PC61BM [183]
b)
1.67 11.5 791 19.7 73.7 [192]a)
1.68 12.0 1030 18.5 63.0 PBDTTT-EFT:EHIDTBR [193]
1.69 8.9 878 13.9 72.9 PBT1-C:NFA [194]
b)
1.70 11.1 867 17.8 71.9 [195]a)
1.72 10.0 899 16.8 66.4 b) [21]a)
1.79 7.5 1140 10.6 62.1 BDT-ffBX-DT:PDI4 [196]
1.79 6.2 1230 8.9 56.6 BDT-ffBX-DT:SFPDI [196]
1.85 9.0 900 13.8 72.9 BTR:PC71BM [184]
1.85 7.6 830 13.3 69.1 PBDB-T:PC71BM [181]
1.86 7.4 940 12.7 61.9 PBDB-T:NDP-Se-DIO [197]
1.88 5.7 950 10.7 55.9 PBDB-T-2Cl:PC61BM [166]
2.01 3.7 592 10.4 59.2 P3HT:PCBM [198]
a)Certified
efficiency; b)Exception included as a PCE highlight but missing the absorber information.
Table 4. Best dye sensitized research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Dye sensitizer Ref.
a)
1.44 11.0 714 21.9 70.3 [21]b)
a)
1.52 11.4 743 21.3 71.9 [21]b)
1.59 10.1 710 18.5 76.9 TF-tBu_C3F7 [199]
1.74 7.8 694 15.4 72.7 YD2 [200]
1.77 10 740 18.1 74.7 N719 [201]
1.80 6.5 663 13.3 74.5 SK7 [200]
1.82 6.4 680 13.1 71.8 AN-11 [202]
a) [4]b)
1.85 12.3 1020 15.2 79.1
1.86 8.3 782 14.8 71.7 N719 [203]
1.87 9.1 1060 11.2 76.7 L351 [204]
1.88 7.8 730 14.3 74.7 TY4 [201]
1.89 8.5 580 21.3 68.8 N719+W2 [205]
1.93 11.2 1140 13.0 75.6 L350 [204]
1.97 3.0 600 6.3 79.4 AN-14 [202]
1.99 5.4 689 11.3 69.5 SK6 [203]
2.00 6.3 732 12.0 71.7 CW10+SK6 [203]
2.01 9.2 1160 11 72.1 L349 [204]
2.02 8.1 760 14.3 75.0 TY6 [201]
2.05 3.9 680 7.4 77.5 AN-12 [202]
2.09 6.9 780 11.6 76.3 TY3 [201]
2.12 5.8 739 10.8 72.7 CW10 [203]
2.23 5.8 760 10.2 74.8 MS3 [201]
2.32 5.3 1170 6.4 70.8 L348 [204]
a)
Exception included as a PCE highlight but missing the absorber information; b)Certified efficiency.
Table 5. Best research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum) for several inor-
ganic emerging technologies.
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber material/ Ref.
technology
1.09 10.8 447 38.6 62.6 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [206]
1.11 9.4 457 32.5 63.3 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [207]
1.12 9.5 460 31.1 66.4 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [207]
1.13 12.6 513 35.2 69.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [208]a)
1.13 11.1 460 34.5 69.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [206]a)
1.15 8.4 426 30.0 65.7 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [207]
1.22 7.5 413 28.9 62.4 Sb2Se3 [209]
1.24 9.2 400 32.6 70.6 Sb2Se3 [210]
1.27 4.8 370 27.3 47.3 Sb2Se3 [210]
1.50 11.0 731 21.7 69.3 Cu2ZnSnS4 [211]a)
1.50 10.0 655 24.1 63.3 Sb2(S,Se)3 [212]a)
1.52 8.73 664 20.6 63.9 (Cu0.99Ag0.01)1.85(Zn0.8 [213]
Cd0.2)1.1SnS4
a)Certified
efficiency.
Table 6. Best research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum) for established technologies.
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber material/technology Ref.
1.09 19.8 716 34.9 79.2 CIGS [214]a)
1.10 21.7 718 40.7 74.3 CIGS [191]a)
1.11 26.7 738 42.7 84.9 Si (crystalline) [191]a)
1.13 22.9 744 38.8 79.5 CIGS [215]a)
1.14 21.0 757 35.7 77.6 CIGS [216]a)
1.15 23.4 734 39.6 80.4 CIGS [176]a)
1.30 16.3 762 31.4 68.1 CIGS [217]
1.42 29.1 1127 29.8 86.7 GaAs [218]a)
1.42 21.0 1062 30.3 79.4 CdTe [187]a)
1.48 18.3 857 27.0 77.0 CdTe [195]a)
1.60 10.2 896 16.4 69.8 Si (amorphous) [187]a)
1.69 10.6 896 16.1 75.6 Si (amorphous) [219]
1.85 10.1 886 16.8 67.0 Si (amorphous) [220]a)
a)
Certified efficiency.
10.2. Best Flexible Efficiency Research Solar Cells Tables

Table 7. Best flexible perovskite research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
1.47 3.62 616 14.5 40.6 (5-AVA)y(MA)1−yPbI3 [221]a)
1.54 18.3 1090 23.4 71.5 FA0.95Cs0.05PbI3 [96]
1.54 18.2 1070 22.1 76.9 FAPbI3–xBrx [222]
1.56 17.1 1101 22.1 75.4 MA0.7FA0.3PbI3 [223]
1.57 19.5 1110 23.1 76.0 FA0.945MA0.025Cs0.03Pb(I0.975Br0.025)3 [224]
1.59 19.3 1090 22.7 78.1 MAPbI3–NH4Cl [225]
1.60 19.0 1090 21.8 80.0 MAPbI3 [226]
1.60 18.4 1103 22.5 74.2 MAPbI3–dimethylsulfide [227]
1.61 17.3 1062 21.7 74.9 Cs0.05FA0.81MA0.14PbI2.55Br0.45 [228]b)
1.61 19.1 1135 21.2 79.2 Rb0.01K0.04 (Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.95)0.95 [229]
(I0.83Br0.17)3
1.62 18.0 1120 22.3 72.1 Cs0.06FA0.79MA0.15PbI2.55Br0.45 [230]
1.63 10.4 1030 19.2 52.8 (FAPbI3)0.85(MAPbBr3)0.15 [231]
1.65 11.2 940 18.4 64.9 MAPbI3 [232]
1.65 7.9 1090 10.8 70.7 (α-FAPbI3)0.5(MAPbI2Br)0.5 [233]
a)E taken from absorption spectrum; b)Certified efficiency; MA: methylammonium; FA: formamidinium.
g
Table 8. Best flexible organic research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber blend Ref.
1.32 10.6 690 24.3 63.2 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [163]
1.39 13.4 829 23.0 70.0 PM6:Y6 [234]
1.40 15.2 832 25.1 73.0 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [235]
1.40 14.1 828 23.6 72.0 PM6:Y6:PC71BM [236]
1.55 12.0 840 19.5 73.3 PM6:IT-4F [185]
1.56 11.6 820 19.6 72.2 PBDB-T-2F:IT-4F [237]
1.56 12.1 826 20.9 70.1 PBDB-T-2F:IT-4F [186]
1.61 10.9 900 18.7 64.8 PBDB-T:ITIC [186]
1.63 9.2 770 16.0 74.7 PTB7-Th:PC71BM [238]
1.65 9.3 820 16.5 68.7 J51:ITIC [190]
1.65 8.2 890 13.4 68.6 PBDB-T:ITIC [239]
2.01 3.7 592 10.4 59.2 P3HT:PCBM [198]
Table 9. Best flexible dye sensitized research solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF % Dye sensitizer Ref.
1.74 4.6 750 10.5 58.0 N719 [240]
1.75 7.6 732 15.0 69.2 N719 [241]
1.79 6.5 729 13.19 68.0 N719 [242]
1.81 6.3 754 12.3 67.9 (JH-1)0.6(SQ2)0.4 [243]
1.88 6.0 750 11.2 71.0 N719 [244]
1.94 4.2 710 10.3 57.2 N719 [245]
1.99 6.4 660 18.1 53.4 N719 [240]
Table 10. Best flexible research single-junction solar cells performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spec-
trum) for established and other emerging inorganic technologies.
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber material/technology Ref.
1.14 17.0 656 36.6 70.8 c-Si [246]
1.20 20.4 736 35.1 78.9 CIGS [247]
1.22 18.7 720 35.0 74.4 CIGS [248]
1.32 8.4 550 24.3 63.0 c-Si [249]
1.42 22.1 980 27.1 83.4 GaAs [250]
1.46 16.4 831 25.5 77.4 CdTe [251]
1.49 11.5 821 22.0 63.9 CdTe [252]
1.79 8.8 888 14.3 70 a-Si:H [253]
1.88 8.2 820 15.6 64.0 a-Si:H [254]
10.3. Best Transparent and Semitransparent Research Solar Cells Tables
Table 11. Best transparent and semitransparent perovskite research solar cell performance parameters as a function of the average visible transmit-
tance and the device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). MA: methylammonium; FA: formamidinium.
AVT [%] Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber Ref.
3 1.53 12.2 1017 17.5 68.5 MAPbI3 [255]
5 1.60 16.5 1080 20.6 74.2 MAPbI3 [256]
5 1.61 12.0 960 19.2 65.3 MAPbI3−xClx [257]
5 1.65 11.2 940 18.4 64.9 MAPbI3 [232]
6 1.60 15.8 1100 19.3 74.4 MAPbI3 [258]
7 1.55 13.6 988 20.4 67.5 MAPbI3 [259]
10 1.59 17.5 1070 22.4 73.1 MAPbI3 [260]
10 1.65 16.1 1060 20.4 74.5 Cs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [261]
12 1.60 13.2 1000 19.5 67.8 MAPbI3 [260]
13 1.67 14.9 1100 19.8 68.4 MAPbI2.5Br0.5 [260]
14 1.57 13.0 970 19.1 69.9 MAPbI3−xClx [262]
15 1.61 11.9 1000 17.8 66.3 MAPbI3 [260]
16 1.76 13.7 1120 16.7 73.4 MAPbI2Br [260]
17 1.65 12.8 1040 16.6 74.1 Cs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [261]
18 1.77 12.2 1110 15.1 72.7 MAPbI2Br [260]
18 1.53 9.1 1017 14.6 61.5 MAPbI3 [255]
19 1.55 8.8 941 13.7 68.3 MAPbI3 [259]
20 1.63 14.7 1108 17.6 75.2 KxCs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [263]
21 1.63 14.2 1117 17.4 73.2 KxCs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [263]
21 1.63 11.0 1000 15.9 69.2 MAPbI3 [264]
22 1.61 13.2 1073 17.2 71.7 KxCs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [263]
Table 11. Continued.

AVT [%] Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber Ref.
23 1.61 12.3 1082 17.1 66.6 KxCs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [263]
23 1.62 11.3 1040 15.1 72.3 MAPbI3 [265]
23 1.57 10.8 970 17.3 64.4 MAPbI3−xClx [262]
24 1.87 9.4 1120 13.6 61.6 MAPbI1.5Br1.5 [260]
25 1.55 10.8 950 16.3 69.7 MAPbI3 [266]
26 1.63 10.2 1070 12.2 78.1 MAPbI3 [267]
27 1.60 12.1 1000 18.3 66.2 MAPbI3 [260]
28 1.60 8.5 964 13.1 66.8 MAPbI3−xClx [268]
28 1.57 8.1 1030 11.2 70.2 MAPbI3−xClx [262]
30 1.62 12.8 1030 16.5 74.9 MAPbI3−xClx [269]
30 1.65 7.4 1010 11.8 62.2 Cs0.05(FA0.85MA0.15)0.95Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 [261]
31 1.69 11.9 1050 16.3 69.4 MAPbI2.5Br0.5 [260]
33 1.55 7.3 1037 13.4 52.5 MAPbI3 [270]
34 1.62 11.7 990 15.9 74.6 MAPbI3−xClx [269]
36 1.79 10.3 1080 14.6 65.5 MAPbI2Br [260]
37 1.62 10.8 1010 14.7 73.1 MAPbI3−xClx [269]
37 1.57 7.8 970 11.6 69.6 MAPbI3−xClx [262]
38 1.63 10.7 1060 13.0 77.6 MAPbI3 [267]
41 1.90 8.8 1110 12.8 62.2 MAPbI1.5Br1.5 [260]
42 1.42 10.3 1000 13.6 75.6 MAPbI3−xClx [269]
45 1.64 8.5 960 12.6 73.5 MAPbI3−xClx [269]
46 1.57 3.6 1030 5.4 64.4 MAPbI3−xClx [262]
47 1.63 4.5 880 8.2 63.0 MAPbI3 [271]
66 2.62 1.1 1000 2.1 52.9 Cs2AgBiBr6 [272]
68 2.35 7.8 1550 6.7 72.0 FAPbBr2.43Cl0.57 [161]
72 2.62 1.5 960 2.1 74.3 Cs2AgBiBr6 [272]
72 3.03 0.2 1110 0.6 35.4 MAPbCl3 [273]
73 2.62 1.6 970 2.2 73.1 Cs2AgBiBr6 [272]
73 2.84 0.5 1260 0.9 44.9 MAPbCl2.4Br0.6 [273]
74 2.62 1.5 970 2.2 71.1 Cs2AgBiBr6 [272]
Table 12. Best transparent and semitransparent organic research solar cell performance parameters as a function of the average visible transmittance
and the device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
AVT [%] Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Active material Ref.
2 1.66 7.6 770 15.6 63.3 PBDTTT-C-T:PC71BM [274]
9 1.42 14.2 854 23.0 72.3 PM6:Y6 [275]
11 1.66 7.1 760 14.5 64.4 PBDTTT-C-T:PC71BM [274]
13 1.42 13.3 853 21.7 71.9 PM6:Y6 [275]
14 1.45 11.1 727 21.4 71.3 PTB7-Th:FNIC2 [276]
15 1.52 8.9 772 18.3 63.0 PTB7-Th:FNIC1 [276]
17 1.39 12.6 810 21.2 73.2 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [277]
18 1.39 11.7 810 20.7 69.6 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [277]
19 1.42 12.4 852 20.4 71.4 PM6:Y6 [275]
21 1.39 10.5 800 19.3 68.3 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [277]
25 1.34 11.0 750 20.9 70.0 PCE-10:A078 [278]
25 1.40 10.2 736 20.3 68.3 PTB7-Th:FOIC [279]
Table 12. Continued.
26 1.40 12.9 825 21.6 72.4 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [280]
28 1.66 5.6 760 11.9 61.9 PBDTTT-C-T:PC71BM [274]
30 1.35 10.8 718 21.9 68.7 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [281]
34 1.40 9.1 733 18.5 67.1 PTB7-Th:FOIC [279]
36 1.37 8.8 680 18.0 71.9 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [282]
36 1.86 6.9 890 11.6 66.5 PSEHTT:ICBA [283]
37 1.86 6.1 890 10.2 66.8 PSEHTT:ICBA [283]
39 1.86 4.9 880 8.3 67.9 PSEHTT:ICBA [283]
43 1.34 8.1 730 16.3 68.1 PCE-10:A078 [278]
44 1.37 8.0 680 16.2 72.6 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [282]
46 1.34 10.8 750 20.4 70.6 PCE-10:A078 [278]
47 1.34 7.1 730 14.3 68.0 PCE-10:A078 [278]
47 1.86 2.4 860 4.1 68.2 PSEHTT:ICBA [283]
49 1.37 7.2 670 14.8 72.6 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [282]
50 1.38 8.3 746 16.7 66.8 PTB7-Th:FOIC:PC71BM [56]
51 1.39 7.4 749 14.7 66.7 PTB7:FOIC:PC71BM [56]
53 1.86 1.8 890 3.8 54.8 PSEHTT:ICBA [283]
53 1.32 5.7 750 10.6 69.5 DPP2T:IEICO-4F [284]a)
60 1.33 3.9 749 7.34 70.2 DPP2T:IEICO-4F [284]b)
62 1.33 5.9 690 12.9 66.0 PTB7-Th:6TIC-4F [161]
73 1.50 1.2 990 1.54 81.0 COi8DFIC [57]
84 2.81 0.4 520 1.3 65.0 PBMMA:PEMA:(TBA)2Mo6Cl14 [285]
86 1.52 0.4 500 1.2 66.0 Cy7 [286]
a)Bottom illumination; b)Top illumination.
Table 13. Best semitransparent dye sensitized research solar cell performance parameters as a function of the average visible transmittance and the
device absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
1 2.00 5.2 780 12.4 53.7 N719 [287]
9 2.00 4.5 780 10.3 56.0 N719 [287]
9 1.82 4.3 720 9.9 60.0 N719+SDA [288]
10 2.01 5.2 770 11.9 57.0 N719 [288]
10 2.00 4.9 765 11.4 56.1 N719 [287]
13 1.68 10.1 851 14.9 80.2 SGT-021 [289]a)
14 1.68 9.9 850 14.9 78.5 SGT-021 [289]a)
15 1.68 9.6 850 14.7 77.2 SGT-021 [289]a)
17 1.68 9.8 855 15.1 75.5 SGT-021 [289]a)
23 1.82 4.2 650 9.9 64.0 N719+SDA [288]
23 2.01 3.6 650 8.2 68.0 N719 [288]
24 2.00 3.5 786 7.3 60.9 N719 [287]
25 1.82 2.6 650 5.6 71.0 N719+SDA [288]
30 2.19 1.5 640 3.3 70.0 N719 [288]
43 1.95 7.8 720 15.3 70.8 PdTPBP/BPEA [290]b)
a)Selective absorption-like EQE spectrum; b)Eg calculated from transmittance spectrum.
Table 14. Best semitransparent research solar cell performance parameters as a function of the average visible transmittance and the device absorber
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum) for established inorganic technologies.
AVT [%] Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber/technology Ref.
2 1.23 10.0 640 23.3 66.9 CIGS [291]
9 1.30 9.8 630 20.9 74.1 CIGS [291]
9 1.28 6.5 597 22.9 46.5 CIGS [292]
16 1.83 7.5 810 14.2 65.3 a-Si:H [293]
17 1.83 7.7 810 14.1 67.3 a-Si:H [293]
18 2.05 5.9 720 14.1 58.3 a-SiGe:H [294]
19 1.87 7.3 820 13.1 67.6 a-Si:H [293]
19 1.34 6.5 580 17.5 63.5 CIGS [291]
20 1.64 1.7 495 8.9 40.8 CIGS [295]
22 2.05 5.5 760 12.3 58.6 a-Si:H [294]
23 1.92 6.0 830 10.6 68.2 a-Si:H [293]
24 1.68 6.9 920 10.7 70.3 a-Si:H [296]a)
26 1.50 5.9 710 14.6 57.4 CIGS [297]a)
43 1.53 0.4 101 14.7 27.2 CdTe [298]b)
a)
Eg taken from absorption spectrum; b)Average transmittance instead of AVT.
10.4. Stability Tests Tables of Emerging Research Solar Cells
Table 15. Most stable perovskite research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated 1 sun illumination
as a function of the device bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). MPP: maximum power point (tracking during test); OC: open-circuit (condition
during test); UV-f: ultraviolet light filter; w-LED: white light spectrum light emitting diode source, RH: relative humidity; MPP-RL: the cell is connected
to the load resistance which matches the initial maximum power point.
Eg [eV] 0 h PCE 200 h PCE 1000 h PCE E200h E1000h Absorber Ref. Comments
[%] [%] [%] [Wh cm−2] [Wh cm−2]
1.57 21.8 22.0 21.8 4.2 22.0 Cs0.05(FA0.92MA0.08)0.95Pb(I0.92Br0.08)3 [36] MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 40 °C,
UV-f
1.57 20.6 20.2 20.2 4.1 20.1 FAxCs1−xPbI3 [299] MPP, w-LED, Ar, 55–60 °C
1.58 19.2 19.3 18.4 3.9 19.0 (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.9Br0.1)3 [300] OC, AM1.5G, encapsulation,
70–75 °C
1.59 17.1 11.6 9.5 2.8 11.1 MA0.85Gua0.15PbI3 [301] MPP, AM1.5G, Ar, 60 °C
1.60 19.2 19.5 17.6 4.1 19.1 MAPbI3−xClx [109] OC, AM1.5G
1.60 19.6 19.6 18.8 3.9 19.4 Cs0.05FA0.81MA0.14PbI2.55Br0.45 [302] MPP-RL, AM1.5G, encapsu-
lation, 50–70% RH, 65 °C
1.61 18.1 11.9 13.6 2.6 13.0 MA0.75Gua0.25PbI3 [301] MPP, AM1.5G, Ar, 60 °C
1.63 12.2 13.3 12.3 2.1 9.9 (FA0.79MA0.16Cs0.05)0.97Pb(I0.84Br0.16)2.97 [303] 77 mW cm−2, MPP-RL,
AM1.5G, RH<25%, 26 °C
1.64 20.1 17.8 – 3.7 – Cs0.1(MA0.17FA0.83)0.9Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 [304] MPP, w-LED, N2, 25 °C
1.64 19.7 17.2 – 3.5 – Cs0.5(FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 [305]a) MPP, w-LED, N2, 20 °C

1.66 13.0 14.7 13.0 2.8 14.1 Cs0.17FA0.83Pb(Br0.17I0.83)3 [306] MPP, AM1.5G, 40% RH,
35 °C
1.69 6.8 6.7 – 1.3 – CsSn0.5Ge0.5I3 [117] MPPb), AM1.5G, N2, 45 °C
1.74 12.9 13.4 – 2.7 – CsPbI3 [307] OC, AM1.5G, N2, 25 °C,
UV-f
a)E
g taken from PL peak; b)MA: methylammonium; FA: formamidinium.
Table 16. Most stable organic research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated 1 sun illumination as a
function of the device bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). OC: open-circuit (condition during test); UV-f: ultraviolet light filter; w-LED: white light
spectrum light emitting diode source.
Eg [eV] 0 h PCE [%] 200 h PCE [%] 1000 h PCE [%] E200h [Wh cm−2] E1000h [Wh cm−2] Active material Ref. Comments
1.56 7.8 7.2 6.8 1.5 7.0 PBDB-T:ITIC-2F [308] OC, w-LED, N2, 40 °C, UV-f
1.57 5.0 5.0 4.7 1.0 4.8 P3HT:o-IDTBR [309] OC, AM1.5G, N2, UV-f
1.66 8.0 7.4 7.0 1.5 7.3 PBDB-T:ITIC-Th [308] OC, w-LED, N2, 40 °C, UV-f
1.70 8.7 8.1 – 1.6 – PBDB-T:IDTBR [310] OC, AM1.5G, N2, 35–40 °C
1.84 5.9 5.6 5.4 1.1 5.6 PBDB-T:PCBM [308] OC, w-LED, N2, 40 °C, UV-f
1.94 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.7 3.7 P3HT-PCBM [311] OC, AM1.5G, air
Table 17. Most stable dye sensitized research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated 1 sun illumina-
tion as a function of the device bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). OC: open-circuit (condition during test); UV-f: ultraviolet light filter; w-LED:
white light spectrum light emitting diode source.
Eg [eV] 0 h PCE [%] 200 h PCE [%] 1000 h PCE [%] E200h [Wh cm−2] E1000h [Wh cm−2] Dye sensitizer Ref. Comments
1.59 9.0 9.0 8.2 1.8 8.7 TF-tBu_C3F7 [312] OC, AM1.5G, 65 °C
1.75 6.5 6.7 6.3 1.4 6.6 N719 [313] OC, AM1.5G, 35 °C, UV-f
1.77 6.3 5.8 4.8 1.3 5.5 Z907 [314] OC, w-LED, 20 °C
1.78 9.3 9.9 7.9 1.9 9.2 N719 [315] OC, AM1.5G, 50 °C
1.83 8.4 8.3 – 1.7 – MK2 [312] OC, w-LED
1.85 8.0 8.3 8.3 1.4 8.1 N719 [316] OC, AM1.5G
2.07 5.8 6.5 5.9 1.3 6.2 D35 [317] OC, AM1.5G, 60 °C
Supporting Information Keywords

Supporting Information is available from the Wiley Online Library or bandgap energy, emerging photovoltaics, flexible photovoltaics,
from the author. photovoltaic device photostability, transparent and semitransparent
solar cells
Received: August 28, 2020

Acknowledgements Revised: November 9, 2020
O.A. acknowledges the financial support from the VDI/VD Innovation + Published online: December 4, 2020
Technik GmbH (Project-title: PV-ZUM) and the SAOT funded by the
German Research Foundation (DFG) in the framework of the German
excellence initiative. C.J.B. acknowledges funding from DFG within INST
90/917-1 FUGG, the SFB 953 (DFG, project no. 182849149) and the IGK 2495 [1] W. Shockley, H. J. Queisser, J. Appl. Phys. 1961, 32, 510.
(Energy Conversion Systems—from Materials to Devices). C.J.B. further [2] A. Ndiaye, A. Charki, A. Kobi, C. M. F. Kébé, P. A. Ndiaye,
acknowledges the grants “ELF-PV—Design and development of solution V. Sambou, Sol. Energy 2013, 96, 140.
processed functional materials for the next generations of PV technologies” [3] D. C. Jordan, S. R. Kurtz, Prog. Photovoltaics 2013, 21, 12.
(No. 44-6521a/20/4) and “Solar Factory of the Future” (FKZ 20.2-3410.5-4-5) [4] M. A. Green, E. D. Dunlop, J. Hohl-Ebinger, M. Yoshita,
and the SolTech Initiative by the Bavarian State Government. A.F.N. N. Kopidakis, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, Prog. Photovoltaics 2020, 28, 3.
acknowledges support from FAPESP (Grant 2017/11986-5), Shell and [5] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Prog. Photovoltaics 1993, 1, 25.
the strategic importance of the support given by ANP (Brazil’s National [6] M. A. Green, E. D. Dunlop, J. Hohl-Ebinger, M. Yoshita,
Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels Agency) through the R&D levy regulation. N. Kopidakis, X. Hao, Prog. Photovoltaics 2020, 28, 629.
R.R.L. gratefully acknowledges support from the National Science [7] NREL’s Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart, https://www.nrel.gov/
Foundation under grant CBET-1702591. N.K. acknowledges funding by pv/cell-efficiency.html (accessed: May 2020).
the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable [8] E. L. Unger, E. T. Hoke, C. D. Bailie, W. H. Nguyen, A. R. Bowring,
Energy, Solar Energy Technologies Office, Agreement Number 34351. J.N. T. Heumuller, M. G. Christoforo, M. D. McGehee, Energy Environ.
thanks the European Research Council for support under the European Sci. 2014, 7, 3690.
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement
[9] H. J. Snaith, A. Abate, J. M. Ball, G. E. Eperon, T. Leijtens,
No 742708). Minor alterations were made to Figure 7c,f on March 18, 2021.
N. K. Noel, S. D. Stranks, J. T.-W. Wang, K. Wojciechowski,
Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
W. Zhang, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 1511.
[10] P. Lopez-Varo, J. A. Jiménez-Tejada, M. García-Rosell,
S. Ravishankar, G. Garcia-Belmonte, J. Bisquert, O. Almora, Adv.
Conflict of Interest Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1702772.
R.R.L. is a co-founder, director, and a part owner of Ubiquitous Energy, [11] D.-H. Kang, N.-G. Park, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1805214.
Inc., a company working to commercialize transparent photovoltaic [12] N. Pellet, F. Giordano, M. Ibrahim Dar, G. Gregori, S. M. Zakeeruddin,
technologies. All other authors declare no competing financial interests. J. Maier, M. Grätzel, Prog. Photovoltaics 2017, 25, 942.
[13] L. Rakocevic, F. Ernst, N. T. Yimga, S. Vashishtha, T. Aernouts, Z.-H. Lu, O. F. Mohammed, F. Gao, E. H. Sargent, O. M. Bakr,
T. Heumueller, C. J. Brabec, R. Gehlhaar, J. Poortmans, Sol. RRL Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 131.
2019, 3, 1800287. [37] Fair Principles, https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ (accessed:
[14] M. V. Khenkin, A. K. M, I. Visoly-Fisher, Y. Galagan, F. Di July 2020).
Giacomo, B. R. Patil, G. Sherafatipour, V. Turkovic, H.-G. Rubahn, [38] H. J. Snaith, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2010, 20, 13.
M. Madsen, T. Merckx, G. Uytterhoeven, J. P. A. Bastos, [39] J.-F. Guillemoles, T. Kirchartz, D. Cahen, U. Rau, Nat. Photonics
T. Aernouts, F. Brunetti, M. Lira-Cantu, E. A. Katz, Energy Environ. 2019, 13, 501.
Sci. 2018, 11, 739. [40] S. A. Hashemi, S. Ramakrishna, A. G. Aberle, Energy Environ. Sci.
[15] M. Saliba, M. Stolterfoht, C. M. Wolff, D. Neher, A. Abate, Joule 2020, 13, 685.
2018, 2, 1019. [41] J. H. Heo, D. S. Lee, D. H. Shin, S. H. Im, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019,
[16] M. V. Khenkin, E. A. Katz, A. Abate, G. Bardizza, J. J. Berry, 7, 888.
C. Brabec, F. Brunetti, V. Bulović, Q. Burlingame, A. Di Carlo, [42] H. S. Jung, G. S. Han, N.-G. Park, M. J. Ko, Joule 2019, 3, 1850.
R. Cheacharoen, Y.-B. Cheng, A. Colsmann, S. Cros, K. Domanski, [43] H. Xie, X. Yin, Y. Guo, J. Liu, W. Que, G. Wang, Phys. Status Solidi
M. Dusza, C. J. Fell, S. R. Forrest, Y. Galagan, D. Di Girolamo, RRL 2019, 13, 1800566.
M. Grätzel, A. Hagfeldt, E. von Hauff, H. Hoppe, J. Kettle, [44] J. Ramanujam, D. M. Bishop, T. K. Todorov, O. Gunawan, J. Rath,
H. Köbler, M. S. Leite, S. Liu, Y.-L. Loo, J. M. Luther, C.-Q. Ma, R. Nekovei, E. Artegiani, A. Romeo, Prog. Mater. Sci. 2020, 110,
M. Madsen, M. Manceau, M. Matheron, M. McGehee, 100619.
R. Meitzner, M. K. Nazeeruddin, A. F. Nogueira, Ç. Odabaşı, [45] Y.-C. Wang, T.-T. Wu, Y.-L. Chueh, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2019, 234,
A. Osherov, N.-G. Park, M. O. Reese, F. De Rossi, M. Saliba, 329.
U. S. Schubert, H. J. Snaith, S. D. Stranks, W. Tress, P. A. Troshin, [46] X. Meng, L. Zhang, Y. Xie, X. Hu, Z. Xing, Z. Huang, C. Liu,
V. Turkovic, S. Veenstra, I. Visoly-Fisher, A. Walsh, T. Watson, L. Tan, W. Zhou, Y. Sun, W. Ma, Y. Chen, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31,
H. Xie, R. Yıldırım, S. M. Zakeeruddin, K. Zhu, M. Lira-Cantu, Nat. 1903649.
Energy 2020, 5, 35. [47] K. Miettunen, J. Vapaavuori, A. Poskela, A. Tiihonen, P. D. Lund,
[17] IEC TS 62876-2-1:2018. Nanotechnology – Reliability assessment WIREs Energy Environ. 2018, 7, e302.
– Part 2-1: Nano-enabled photovoltaic devices – Stability test, [48] O. Filip, K. Janda, L. Kristoufek, D. Zilberman, Energy Econ. 2019,
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/26699 (accessed: July 2020). 82, 152.
[18] S. Ravishankar, C. Aranda, P. P. Boix, J. A. Anta, J. Bisquert, [49] A. A. F. Husain, W. Z. W. Hasan, S. Shafie, M. N. Hamidon,
G. Garcia-Belmonte, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 3099. S. S. Pandey, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 779.
[19] D. J. Wehenkel, K. H. Hendriks, M. M. Wienk, R. A. J. Janssen, Org. [50] J. Sun, J. J. Jasieniak, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2017, 50, 093001.
Electron. 2012, 13, 3284. [51] Q. Tai, F. Yan, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1700192.
[20] C. Honsberg, S. Bowden, Standard Solar Spectra, https://www. [52] B. Shi, L. Duan, Y. Zhao, J. Luo, X. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32,
pveducation.org/pvcdrom/appendices/standard-solar-spectra 1806474.
(accessed: April 2020). [53] S. Rahmany, L. Etgar, ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 1519.
[21] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog. [54] V. V. Brus, J. Lee, B. R. Luginbuhl, S.-J. Ko, G. C. Bazan,
Photovoltaics 2012, 20, 12. T.-Q. Nguyen, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1900904.
[22] IEC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007. [55] C. J. Traverse, R. Pandey, M. C. Barr, R. R. Lunt, Nat. Energy 2017, 2,
[23] A. International, www.astm.org, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005. 849.
[24] E. Manke, Standards For Simulators Can Vary Widely 2011, [56] Q. Liu, L. G. Gerling, F. Bernal-Texca, J. Toudert, T. Li, X. Zhan,
Retrieved from https://www.newport.com/medias/sys_master/ J. Martorell, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1904196.
images/images/h74/h27/8797264412702/Solar-Industry-Solar-Sim- [57] C. Yang, M. Moemeni, M. Bates, W. Sheng, B. Borhan, R. R. Lunt,
ulation.pdf. Adv. Opt. Mater. 2020, 8, 1901536.
[25] R. B. Dunbar, B. C. Duck, T. Moriarty, K. F. Anderson, N. W. Duffy, [58] Q. Wali, F. J. Iftikhar, M. E. Khan, A. Ullah, Y. Iqbal, R. Jose, Org.
C. J. Fell, J. Kim, A. Ho-Baillie, D. Vak, T. Duong, Y. Wu, K. Weber, Electron. 2020, 78, 105590.
A. Pascoe, Y.-B. Cheng, Q. Lin, P. L. Burn, R. Bhattacharjee, [59] N. A. N. Ouedraogo, Y. Chen, Y. Y. Xiao, Q. Meng, C. B. Han,
H. Wang, G. J. Wilson, J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 22542. H. Yan, Y. Zhang, Nano Energy 2020, 67, 104249.
[26] B. Chen, M. Yang, X. Zheng, C. Wu, W. Li, Y. Yan, J. Bisquert, [60] E. M. Speller, A. J. Clarke, J. Luke, H. K. H. Lee, J. R. Durrant, N. Li,
G. Garcia-Belmonte, K. Zhu, S. Priya, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, T. Wang, H. C. Wong, J.-S. Kim, W. C. Tsoi, Z. Li, J. Mater. Chem. A
4693. 2019, 7, 23361.
[27] U. Rau, B. Blank, T. C. M. Müller, T. Kirchartz, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2017, [61] R. Wang, M. Mujahid, Y. Duan, Z.-K. Wang, J. Xue, Y. Yang, Adv.
7, 044016. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1808843.
[28] M. A. Green, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4, 1639. [62] U. Mehmood, A. Al-Ahmed, F. A. Al-Sulaiman, M. I. Malik,
[29] S. Rühle, Sol. Energy 2016, 130, 139. F. Shehzad, A. U. H. Khan, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2017,
[30] J. Tauc, R. Grigorovici, A. Vancu, Phys. Status Solidi B 1966, 15, 627. 79, 946.
[31] B. D. Viezbicke, S. Patel, B. E. Davis, D. P. Birnie III, Phys. Status [63] O. Almora, P. Lopez-Varo, K. T. Cho, S. Aghazada, W. Meng,
Solidi B 2015, 252, 1700. Y. Hou, C. Echeverría-Arrondo, I. Zimmermann, G. J. Matt,
[32] C. Yang, D. Liu, M. Bates, M. C. Barr, R. R. Lunt, Joule 2019, 3, J. A. Jiménez-Tejada, C. J. Brabec, M. K. Nazeeruddin,
1803. G. Garcia-Belmonte, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 195,
[33] C. Yang, D. Liu, R. R. Lunt, Joule 2019, 3, 2871. 291.
[34] R. R. Lunt, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 101, 043902. [64] L. H. Wong, A. Zakutayev, J. D. Major, X. Hao, A. Walsh,
[35] E. F. Schubert, Light-Emitting Diodes, Cambridge University Press, T. K. Todorov, E. Saucedo, J. Phys. Energy 2019, 1, 032001.
Cambridge 2006. [65] H. Anwar, I. Arif, U. Javeed, H. Mushtaq, K. Ali, S. K. Sharma, in
[36] X. Zheng, Y. Hou, C. Bao, J. Yin, F. Yuan, Z. Huang, K. Song, J. Liu, Solar Cells: From Materials to Device Technology (Eds: S. K. Sharma,
J. Troughton, N. Gasparini, C. Zhou, Y. Lin, D.-J. Xue, B. Chen, K. Ali), Springer International Publishing, Cham 2020, p. 235.
A. K. Johnston, N. Wei, M. N. Hedhili, M. Wei, A. Y. Alsalloum, [66] T. Jiang, Z. Chen, X. Chen, T. Liu, X. Chen, W. E. I. Sha, H. Zhu,
P. Maity, B. Turedi, C. Yang, D. Baran, T. D. Anthopoulos, Y. Han, Y. Yang, Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 1900467.
[67] J. Tong, Z. Song, D. H. Kim, X. Chen, C. Chen, A. F. Palmstrom, [91] Y. Zhao, X. Xu, H. Zhang, J. Shi, L. Zhu, H. Wu, D. Li, Y. Luo,
P. F. Ndione, M. O. Reese, S. P. Dunfield, O. G. Reid, J. Liu, Q. Meng, J. Power Sources 2017, 359, 147.
F. Zhang, S. P. Harvey, Z. Li, S. T. Christensen, G. Teeter, D. Zhao, [92] S. Yuan, Y. Cai, S. Yang, H. Zhao, F. Qian, Y. Han, J. Sun, Z. Liu,
M. M. Al-Jassim, M. F. A. M. van Hest, M. C. Beard, S. E. Shaheen, S. Liu, Sol. RRL 2019, 3, 1900220.
J. J. Berry, Y. Yan, K. Zhu, Science 2019, 364, 475. [93] H. Min, M. Kim, S.-U. Lee, H. Kim, G. Kim, K. Choi, J. H. Lee,
[68] C. Li, Z. Song, D. Zhao, C. Xiao, B. Subedi, N. Shrestha, S. I. Seok, Science 2019, 366, 749.
M. M. Junda, C. Wang, C.-S. Jiang, M. Al-Jassim, R. J. Ellingson, [94] Q. Jiang, Y. Zhao, X. Zhang, X. Yang, Y. Chen, Z. Chu, Q. Ye, X. Li,
N. J. Podraza, K. Zhu, Y. Yan, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, Z. Yin, J. You, Nat. Photonics 2019, 13, 460.
1803135. [95] T. Niu, J. Lu, M.-C. Tang, D. Barrit, D.-M. Smilgies, Z. Yang, J. Li,
[69] R. Lin, K. Xiao, Z. Qin, Q. Han, C. Zhang, M. Wei, M. I. Saidaminov, Y. Fan, T. Luo, I. McCulloch, A. Amassian, S. Liu, K. Zhao, Energy
Y. Gao, J. Xu, M. Xiao, A. Li, J. Zhu, E. H. Sargent, H. Tan, Nat. Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 3358.
Energy 2019, 4, 864. [96] D. Yang, R. Yang, K. Wang, C. Wu, X. Zhu, J. Feng, X. Ren, G. Fang,
[70] Z. Yang, Z. Yu, H. Wei, X. Xiao, Z. Ni, B. Chen, Y. Deng, S. Priya, S. Liu, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3239.
S. N. Habisreutinger, X. Chen, K. Wang, J. Zhao, P. N. Rudd, [97] M. Jeong, I. W. Choi, E. M. Go, Y. Cho, M. Kim, B. Lee, S. Jeong,
J. J. Berry, M. C. Beard, J. Huang, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4498. Y. Jo, H. W. Choi, J. Lee, J.-H. Bae, S. K. Kwak, D. S. Kim, C. Yang,
[71] G. Kapil, T. Bessho, C. H. Ng, K. Hamada, M. Pandey, Science 2020, 369, 1615.
M. A. Kamarudin, D. Hirotani, T. Kinoshita, T. Minemoto, Q. Shen, [98] W. S. Yang, B.-W. Park, E. H. Jung, N. J. Jeon, Y. C. Kim, D. U. Lee,
T. Toyoda, T. N. Murakami, H. Segawa, S. Hayase, ACS Energy Lett. S. S. Shin, J. Seo, E. K. Kim, J. H. Noh, S. I. Seok, Science 2017,
2019, 4, 1991. 356, 1376.
[72] S. Shao, Y. Cui, H. Duim, X. Qiu, J. Dong, G. H. ten Brink, [99] W.-Q. Wu, Z. Yang, P. N. Rudd, Y. Shao, X. Dai, H. Wei, J. Zhao,
G. Portale, R. C. Chiechi, S. Zhang, J. Hou, M. A. Loi, Adv. Mater. Y. Fang, Q. Wang, Y. Liu, Y. Deng, X. Xiao, Y. Feng, J. Huang, Sci.
2018, 30, 1803703. Adv. 2019, 5, eaav8925.
[73] T. S. Ripolles, D. Yamasuso, Y. Zhang, M. A. Kamarudin, C. Ding, [100] E. H. Jung, N. J. Jeon, E. Y. Park, C. S. Moon, T. J. Shin, T.-Y. Yang,
D. Hirotani, Q. Shen, S. Hayase, J. Phys. Chem. C 2018, 122, 27284. J. H. Noh, J. Seo, Nature 2019, 567, 511.
[74] M. Liu, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, H.-L. Yip, Y. Cao, Mater. Chem. Front. [101] Q. Jiang, Z. Chu, P. Wang, X. Yang, H. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Yin, J. Wu,
2019, 3, 496. X. Zhang, J. You, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1703852.
[75] Y. Wang, J. Tu, T. Li, C. Tao, X. Deng, Z. Li, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, [102] Z. Chen, X. Zheng, F. Yao, J. Ma, C. Tao, G. Fang, J. Mater. Chem.
7, 7683. A 2018, 6, 17625.
[76] F. Li, C. Zhang, J.-H. Huang, H. Fan, H. Wang, P. Wang, C. Zhan, [103] L. Meng, C. Sun, R. Wang, W. Huang, Z. Zhao, P. Sun, T. Huang,
C.-M. Liu, X. Li, L.-M. Yang, Y. Song, K.-J. Jiang, Angew. Chem., Int. J. Xue, J.-W. Lee, C. Zhu, Y. Huang, Y. Li, Y. Yang, J. Am. Chem. Soc.
Ed. 2019, 58, 6688. 2018, 140, 17255.
[77] G. E. Eperon, T. Leijtens, K. A. Bush, R. Prasanna, T. Green, [104] J. J. Yoo, S. Wieghold, M. C. Sponseller, M. R. Chua, S. N. Bertram,
J. T.-W. Wang, D. P. McMeekin, G. Volonakis, R. L. Milot, N. T. P. Hartono, J. S. Tresback, E. C. Hansen, J.-P. Correa-Baena,
R. May, A. Palmstrom, D. J. Slotcavage, R. A. Belisle, J. B. Patel, V. Bulović, T. Buonassisi, S. S. Shin, M. G. Bawendi, Energy
E. S. Parrott, R. J. Sutton, W. Ma, F. Moghadam, B. Conings, Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 2192.
A. Babayigit, H.-G. Boyen, S. Bent, F. Giustino, L. M. Herz, [105] H. B. Lee, N. Kumar, M. M. Ovhal, Y. J. Kim, Y. M. Song,
M. B. Johnston, M. D. McGehee, H. J. Snaith, Science 2016, 354, 861. J.-W. Kang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2001559.
[78] S. Lee, D.-W. Kang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 22432. [106] P. Cui, D. Wei, J. Ji, H. Huang, E. Jia, S. Dou, T. Wang, W. Wang,
[79] B. Zhao, M. Abdi-Jalebi, M. Tabachnyk, H. Glass, M. Li, Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 150.
V. S. Kamboj, W. Nie, A. J. Pearson, Y. Puttisong, K. C. Gödel, [107] M. Li, Z.-K. Wang, M.-P. Zhuo, Y. Hu, K.-H. Hu, Q.-Q. Ye,
H. E. Beere, D. A. Ritchie, A. D. Mohite, S. E. Dutton, R. H. Friend, S. M. Jain, Y.-G. Yang, X.-Y. Gao, L.-S. Liao, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30,
A. Sadhanala, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1604744. 1800258.
[80] X. Lian, J. Chen, Y. Zhang, M. Qin, J. Li, S. Tian, W. Yang, X. Lu, [108] X. Zheng, B. Chen, J. Dai, Y. Fang, Y. Bai, Y. Lin, H. Wei, X. C. Zeng,
G. Wu, H. Chen, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807024. J. Huang, Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 17102.
[81] M. Zhang, D. Chi, J. Wang, F. Wu, S. Huang, Sol. Energy 2020, 201, 589. [109] L. Wang, H. Zhou, J. Hu, B. Huang, M. Sun, B. Dong, G. Zheng,
[82] D. Chi, S. Huang, M. Zhang, S. Mu, Y. Zhao, Y. Chen, J. You, Adv. Y. Huang, Y. Chen, L. Li, Z. Xu, N. Li, Z. Liu, Q. Chen, L.-D. Sun,
Funct. Mater. 2018, 28, 1804603. C.-H. Yan, Science 2019, 363, 265.
[83] H. L. Zhu, J. Xiao, J. Mao, H. Zhang, Y. Zhao, W. C. H. Choy, Adv. [110] X. Zhao, C. Yao, T. Liu, J. C. Hamill Jr., G. O. Ngongang Ndjawa,
Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1605469. G. Cheng, N. Yao, H. Meng, Y.-L. Loo, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31,
[84] X. Zhou, L. Zhang, X. Wang, C. Liu, S. Chen, M. Zhang, X. Li, 1904494.
W. Yi, B. Xu, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1908107. [111] M. A. Mahmud, T. Duong, Y. Yin, H. T. Pham, D. Walter, J. Peng,
[85] P. Wang, F. Li, K.-J. Jiang, Y. Zhang, H. Fan, Y. Zhang, Y. Miao, Y. Wu, L. Li, H. Shen, N. Wu, N. Mozaffari, G. Andersson,
J.-H. Huang, C. Gao, X. Zhou, F. Wang, L.-M. Yang, C. Zhan, K. R. Catchpole, K. J. Weber, T. P. White, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020,
Y. Song, Adv. Sci. 2020, 7, 1903047. 30, 1907962.
[86] D. B. Khadka, Y. Shirai, M. Yanagida, K. Miyano, J. Mater. Chem. C [112] K. Choi, J. Lee, H. I. Kim, C. W. Park, G.-W. Kim, H. Choi,
2020, 8, 2307. S. Park, S. A. Park, T. Park, Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11,
[87] Z. Yang, A. Rajagopal, C.-C. Chueh, S. B. Jo, B. Liu, T. Zhao, 3238.
A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 8990. [113] N. J. Jeon, J. H. Noh, Y. C. Kim, W. S. Yang, S. Ryu, S. I. Seok, Nat.
[88] M. M. Tavakoli, S. M. Zakeeruddin, M. Grätzel, Z. Fan, Adv. Mater. Mater. 2014, 13, 897.
2018, 30, 1705998. [114] J. H. Noh, S. H. Im, J. H. Heo, T. N. Mandal, S. I. Seok, Nano Lett.
[89] T. Wu, X. Liu, X. He, Y. Wang, X. Meng, T. Noda, X. Yang, L. Han, 2013, 13, 1764.
Sci. China Chem. 2020, 63, 107. [115] S. A. Kulkarni, T. Baikie, P. P. Boix, N. Yantara, N. Mathews,
[90] K. Nishimura, M. A. Kamarudin, D. Hirotani, K. Hamada, Q. Shen, S. Mhaisalkar, J. Mater. Chem. A 2014, 2, 9221.
S. Iikubo, T. Minemoto, K. Yoshino, S. Hayase, Nano Energy 2020, [116] H. Tan, F. Che, M. Wei, Y. Zhao, M. I. Saidaminov, P. Todorović,
74, 104858. D. Broberg, G. Walters, F. Tan, T. Zhuang, B. Sun, Z. Liang,
H. Yuan, E. Fron, J. Kim, Z. Yang, O. Voznyy, M. Asta, [138] B.-W. Park, B. Philippe, X. Zhang, H. Rensmo, G. Boschloo,
E. H. Sargent, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3100. E. M. J. Johansson, Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 6806.
[117] M. Chen, M.-G. Ju, H. F. Garces, A. D. Carl, L. K. Ono, Z. Hawash, [139] J. Liang, P. Zhao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Hu, G. Zhu, L. Ma, J. Liu,
Y. Zhang, T. Shen, Y. Qi, R. L. Grimm, D. Pacifici, X. C. Zeng, Z. Jin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 14009.
Y. Zhou, N. P. Padture, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 16. [140] D. Forgács, L. Gil-Escrig, D. Pérez-Del-Rey, C. Momblona,
[118] M.-J. Wu, C.-C. Kuo, L.-S. Jhuang, P.-H. Chen, Y.-F. Lai, F.-C. Chen, J. Werner, B. Niesen, C. Ballif, M. Sessolo, H. J. Bolink, Adv. Energy
Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1901863. Mater. 2017, 7, 1602121.
[119] Y. Zhou, Y.-H. Jia, H.-H. Fang, M. A. Loi, F.-Y. Xie, L. Gong, [141] Q. Xue, G. Chen, M. Liu, J. Xiao, Z. Chen, Z. Hu, X.-F. Jiang,
M.-C. Qin, X.-H. Lu, C.-P. Wong, N. Zhao, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018, B. Zhang, F. Huang, W. Yang, H.-L. Yip, Y. Cao, Adv. Energy Mater.
28, 1803130. 2016, 6, 1502021.
[120] D. P. McMeekin, G. Sadoughi, W. Rehman, G. E. Eperon, [142] Y. Zhao, A. M. Nardes, K. Zhu, Faraday Discuss. 2014, 176, 301.
M. Saliba, M. T. Hörantner, A. Haghighirad, N. Sakai, L. Korte, [143] H. Wang, S. Cao, B. Yang, H. Li, M. Wang, X. Hu, K. Sun, Z. Zang,
B. Rech, M. B. Johnston, L. M. Herz, H. J. Snaith, Science 2016, Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 1900363.
351, 151. [144] W. Zhu, Z. Zhang, W. Chai, Q. Zhang, D. Chen, Z. Lin, J. Chang,
[121] T. Duong, H. Pham, T. C. Kho, P. Phang, K. C. Fong, D. Yan, J. Zhang, C. Zhang, Y. Hao, ChemSusChem 2019, 12, 2318.
Y. Yin, J. Peng, M. A. Mahmud, S. Gharibzadeh, B. A. Nejand, [145] B. Zhang, W. Bi, Y. Wu, C. Chen, H. Li, Z. Song, Q. Dai, L. Xu,
I. M. Hossain, M. R. Khan, N. Mozaffari, Y. Wu, H. Shen, J. Zheng, H. Song, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 33868.
H. Mai, W. Liang, C. Samundsett, M. Stocks, K. McIntosh, [146] R. Nie, A. Mehta, B.-w. Park, H.-W. Kwon, J. Im, S. I. Seok, J. Am.
G. G. Andersson, U. Lemmer, B. S. Richards, U. W. Paetzold, Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 872.
A. Ho-Ballie, Y. Liu, D. Macdonald, A. Blakers, J. Wong-Leung, [147] T. Bu, X. Liu, R. Chen, Z. Liu, K. Li, W. Li, Y. Peng, Z. Ku, F. Huang,
T. White, K. Weber, K. Catchpole, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, Y.-B. Cheng, J. Zhong, J. Mater. Chem. A 2018, 6, 6319.
1903553. [148] F. Umar, J. Zhang, Z. Jin, I. Muhammad, X. Yang, H. Deng,
[122] S. Gharibzadeh, B. Abdollahi Nejand, M. Jakoby, T. Abzieher, K. Jahangeer, Q. Hu, H. Song, J. Tang, Adv. Opt. Mater. 2019, 7,
D. Hauschild, S. Moghadamzadeh, J. A. Schwenzer, P. Brenner, 1801368.
R. Schmager, A. A. Haghighirad, L. Weinhardt, U. Lemmer, [149] Y. Zhang, Y. Liang, Y. Wang, F. Guo, L. Sun, D. Xu, ACS Energy Lett.
B. S. Richards, I. A. Howard, U. W. Paetzold, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 3, 1808.
2019, 9, 1803699. [150] J. Duan, Y. Zhao, B. He, Q. Tang, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57,
[123] Y. Lin, B. Chen, F. Zhao, X. Zheng, Y. Deng, Y. Shao, Y. Fang, Y. Bai, 3787.
C. Wang, J. Huang, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1700607. [151] G. Liao, J. Duan, Y. Zhao, Q. Tang, Sol. Energy 2018, 171, 279.
[124] Q. Ye, Y. Zhao, S. Mu, F. Ma, F. Gao, Z. Chu, Z. Yin, P. Gao, [152] J. Zhu, B. He, Z. Gong, Y. Ding, W. Zhang, X. Li, Z. Zong, H. Chen,
X. Zhang, J. You, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1905143. Q. Tang, ChemSusChem 2020, 13, 1834.
[125] X. Hu, X.-F. Jiang, X. Xing, L. Nian, X. Liu, R. Huang, K. Wang, [153] Y. Zhao, J. Duan, Y. Wang, X. Yang, Q. Tang, Nano Energy 2020, 67,
H.-L. Yip, G. Zhou, Sol. RRL 2018, 2, 1800083. 104286.
[126] Y.-N. Zhang, B. Li, L. Fu, Y. Zou, Q. Li, L.-W. Yin, Sol. Energy Mater. [154] Y. Zhao, J. Duan, H. Yuan, Y. Wang, X. Yang, B. He, Q. Tang, Sol.
Sol. Cells 2019, 194, 168. RRL 2019, 3, 1800284.
[127] M. Chen, M.-G. Ju, A. D. Carl, Y. Zong, R. L. Grimm, J. Gu, [155] C. H. Ng, T. S. Ripolles, K. Hamada, S. H. Teo, H. N. Lim,
X. C. Zeng, Y. Zhou, N. P. Padture, Joule 2018, 2, 558. J. Bisquert, S. Hayase, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2482.
[128] J. Zhang, Z. Wang, A. Mishra, M. Yu, M. Shasti, W. Tress, [156] F. Jiang, D. Yang, Y. Jiang, T. Liu, X. Zhao, Y. Ming, B. Luo, F. Qin,
D. J. Kubicki, C. E. Avalos, H. Lu, Y. Liu, B. I. Carlsen, A. Agarwalla, J. Fan, H. Han, L. Zhang, Y. Zhou, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140,
Z. Wang, W. Xiang, L. Emsley, Z. Zhang, M. Grätzel, W. Guo, 1019.
A. Hagfeldt, Joule 2020, 4, 222. [157] X. Wan, Z. Yu, W. Tian, F. Huang, S. Jin, X. Yang, Y.-B. Cheng,
[129] W. Xiang, Z. Wang, D. J. Kubicki, X. Wang, W. Tress, J. Luo, A. Hagfeldt, L. Sun, J. Energy Chem. 2020, 46, 8.
J. Zhang, A. Hofstetter, L. Zhang, L. Emsley, M. Grätzel, [158] Y. Zhao, H. Xu, Y. Wang, X. Yang, J. Duan, Q. Tang, J. Power Sources
A. Hagfeldt, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4686. 2019, 440, 227151.
[130] W. Xiang, Z. Wang, D. J. Kubicki, W. Tress, J. Luo, D. Prochowicz, [159] M. Safdari, P. H. Svensson, M. T. Hoang, I. Oh, L. Kloo,
S. Akin, L. Emsley, J. Zhou, G. Dietler, M. Grätzel, A. Hagfeldt, J. M. Gardner, J. Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 15638.
Joule 2019, 3, 205. [160] G. Murugadoss, R. Thangamuthu, S. M. Senthil Kumar,
[131] S. Yang, H. Zhao, Y. Han, C. Duan, Z. Liu, S. Liu, Small 2019, 15, N. Anandhan, M. Rajesh Kumar, A. Rathishkumar, J. Alloys Compd.
1904387. 2019, 787, 17.
[132] H. Zhao, Y. Han, Z. Xu, C. Duan, S. Yang, S. Yuan, Z. Yang, Z. Liu, [161] L. Zuo, X. Shi, W. Fu, A. K.-Y. Jen, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1901683.
S. Liu, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1902279. [162] E. Greul, M. L. Petrus, A. Binek, P. Docampo, T. Bein, J. Mater.
[133] C. Duan, J. Cui, M. Zhang, Y. Han, S. Yang, H. Zhao, H. Bian, Chem. A 2017, 5, 19972.
J. Yao, K. Zhao, Z. Liu, S. Liu, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, [163] K.-W. Seo, J. Lee, J. Jo, C. Cho, J.-Y. Lee, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31,
2000691. 1902447.
[134] H. Bian, D. Bai, Z. Jin, K. Wang, L. Liang, H. Wang, J. Zhang, [164] X. Song, N. Gasparini, L. Ye, H. Yao, J. Hou, H. Ade, D. Baran,
Q. Wang, S. Liu, Joule 2018, 2, 1500. ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 669.
[135] K. M. Boopathi, P. Karuppuswamy, A. Singh, C. Hanmandlu, [165] X. Song, N. Gasparini, M. M. Nahid, S. H. K. Paleti, C. Li, W. Li,
L. Lin, S. A. Abbas, C. C. Chang, P. C. Wang, G. Li, C. W. Chu, H. Ade, D. Baran, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1902441.
J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 20843. [166] L. Ma, Y. Xu, Y. Zu, Q. Liao, B. Xu, C. An, S. Zhang, J. Hou, Sci.
[136] I. Turkevych, S. Kazaoui, E. Ito, T. Urano, K. Yamada, H. Tomiyasu, China Chem. 2020, 63, 21.
H. Yamagishi, M. Kondo, S. Aramaki, ChemSusChem 2017, 10, [167] S. Liu, J. Yuan, W. Deng, M. Luo, Y. Xie, Q. Liang, Y. Zou, Z. He,
3754. H. Wu, Y. Cao, Nat. Photonics 2020, 14, 300.
[137] B. Ghosh, B. Wu, X. Guo, P. C. Harikesh, R. A. John, T. Baikie, [168] J. Yuan, Y. Zhang, L. Zhou, G. Zhang, H.-L. Yip, T.-K. Lau, X. Lu,
Arramel, A. T. S. Wee, C. Guet, T. C. Sum, S. Mhaisalkar, C. Zhu, H. Peng, P. A. Johnson, M. Leclerc, Y. Cao, J. Ulanski, Y. Li,
N. Mathews, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1802051. Y. Zou, Joule 2019, 3, 1140.
[169] Y. Cui, H. Yao, J. Zhang, K. Xian, T. Zhang, L. Hong, Y. Wang, Y. Xu, [197] M. Li, H. Wang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, H. Lu, J. Song, Z. Bo, Dyes Pigm.
K. Ma, C. An, C. He, Z. Wei, F. Gao, J. Hou, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 2020, 175, 108186.
1908205. [198] D. H. Shin, S. W. Seo, J. M. Kim, H. S. Lee, S.-H. Choi, J. Alloys
[170] Q. Liu, Y. Jiang, K. Jin, J. Qin, J. Xu, W. Li, J. Xiong, J. Liu, Z. Xiao, Compd. 2018, 744, 1.
K. Sun, S. Yang, X. Zhang, L. Ding, Sci. Bull. 2020, 65, 272. [199] T.-K. Chang, Y. Chi, RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 42013.
[171] Y. Cui, H. Yao, L. Hong, T. Zhang, Y. Tang, B. Lin, K. Xian, B. Gao, [200] K. S. K. Reddy, Y.-C. Liu, H.-H. Chou, K. Kala, T.-C. Wei, C.-Y. Yeh,
C. An, P. Bi, W. Ma, J. Hou, Natl. Sci. Rev. 2019, 7, 1239. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 39970.
[172] Z. Zhou, W. Liu, G. Zhou, M. Zhang, D. Qian, J. Zhang, S. Chen, [201] Y. S. Tingare, N. S. n. Vinh, H.-H. Chou, Y.-C. Liu, Y.-S. Long,
S. Xu, C. Yang, F. Gao, H. Zhu, F. Liu, X. Zhu, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, T.-C. Wu, T.-C. Wei, C.-Y. Yeh, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 1700032.
1906324. [202] M.-C. Tsai, C.-L. Wang, C.-W. Chang, C.-W. Hsu, Y.-H. Hsiao,
[173] Y. Lin, B. Adilbekova, Y. Firdaus, E. Yengel, H. Faber, M. Sajjad, C.-L. Liu, C.-C. Wang, S.-Y. Lin, C.-Y. Lin, J. Mater. Chem. A 2018,
X. Zheng, E. Yarali, A. Seitkhan, O. M. Bakr, A. El-Labban, 6, 1995.
U. Schwingenschlögl, V. Tung, I. McCulloch, F. Laquai, [203] K. S. K. Reddy, Y.-C. Chen, C.-C. Wu, C.-W. Hsu, Y.-C. Chang,
T. D. Anthopoulos, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1902965. C.-M. Chen, C.-Y. Yeh, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 2391.
[174] L. Liu, Y. Kan, K. Gao, J. Wang, M. Zhao, H. Chen, C. Zhao, T. Jiu, [204] Y. Liu, Y. Cao, W. Zhang, M. Stojanovic, M. I. Dar, P. Péchy,
A.-K.-Y. Jen, Y. Li, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1907604. Y. Saygili, A. Hagfeldt, S. M. Zakeeruddin, M. Grätzel, Angew.
[175] Y. Cui, H. Yao, J. Zhang, T. Zhang, Y. Wang, L. Hong, K. Xian, Chem. 2018, 130, 14321
B. Xu, S. Zhang, J. Peng, Z. Wei, F. Gao, J. Hou, Nat. Commun. [205] X. Wang, A. Bolag, W. Yun, Y. Du, C. Eerdun, X. Zhang, T. Bao,
2019, 10, 2515. J. Ning, H. Alata, T. Ojiyed, J. Mol. Struct. 2020, 1206, 127694.
[176] M. A. Green, E. D. Dunlop, D. H. Levi, J. Hohl-Ebinger, M. Yoshita, [206] T. K. Todorov, J. Tang, S. Bag, O. Gunawan, T. Gokmen, Y. Zhu,
A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, Prog. Photovoltaics 2019, 27, 565. D. B. Mitzi, Adv. Energy Mater. 2013, 3, 34.
[177] Q. Guo, J. Lin, H. Liu, X. Dong, X. Guo, L. Ye, Z. Ma, Z. Tang, [207] S. Giraldo, E. Saucedo, M. Neuschitzer, F. Oliva, M. Placidi,
H. Ade, M. Zhang, Y. Li, Nano Energy 2020, 74, 104861. X. Alcobé, V. Izquierdo-Roca, S. Kim, H. Tampo, H. Shibata,
[178] H. Lai, Q. Zhao, Z. Chen, H. Chen, P. Chao, Y. Zhu, Y. Lang, A. Pérez-Rodríguez, P. Pistor, Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 582.
N. Zhen, D. Mo, Y. Zhang, F. He, Joule 2020, 4, 688. [208] W. Wang, M. T. Winkler, O. Gunawan, T. Gokmen, T. K. Todorov,
[179] K. Jiang, Q. Wei, J. Y. L. Lai, Z. Peng, H. K. Kim, J. Yuan, L. Ye, Y. Zhu, D. B. Mitzi, Adv. Energy Mater. 2014, 4, 1301465.
H. Ade, Y. Zou, H. Yan, Joule 2019, 3, 3020. [209] K. Shen, Y. Zhang, X. Wang, C. Ou, F. Guo, H. Zhu, C. Liu, Y. Gao,
[180] J. Gao, W. Gao, X. Ma, Z. Hu, C. Xu, X. Wang, Q. An, C. Yang, R. E. I. Schropp, Z. Li, X. Liu, Y. Mai, Adv. Sci. 2020, 7, 2001013.
X. Zhang, F. Zhang, Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13, 958. [210] Z. Li, X. Liang, G. Li, H. Liu, H. Zhang, J. Guo, J. Chen, K. Shen,
[181] C. e. Zhang, P. Jiang, X. Zhou, H. Liu, Q. Guo, X. Xu, Y. Liu, X. San, W. Yu, R. E. I. Schropp, Y. Mai, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 125.
Z. Tang, W. Ma, Z. Bo, J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 2123. [211] C. Yan, J. Huang, K. Sun, S. Johnston, Y. Zhang, H. Sun, A. Pu,
[182] T.-W. Chen, K.-L. Peng, Y.-W. Lin, Y.-J. Su, K.-J. Ma, L. Hong, M. He, F. Liu, K. Eder, L. Yang, J. M. Cairney, N. J. Ekins-Daukes,
C.-C. Chang, J. Hou, C.-S. Hsu, J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 1131. Z. Hameiri, J. A. Stride, S. Chen, M. A. Green, X. Hao, Nat. Energy
[183] J.-L. Wang, K.-K. Liu, L. Hong, G.-Y. Ge, C. Zhang, J. Hou, ACS 2018, 3, 764.
Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 2967. [212] R. Tang, X. Wang, W. Lian, J. Huang, Q. Wei, M. Huang, Y. Yin,
[184] Z. Zhou, S. Xu, J. Song, Y. Jin, Q. Yue, Y. Qian, F. Liu, F. Zhang, C. Jiang, S. Yang, G. Xing, S. Chen, C. Zhu, X. Hao, M. A. Green,
X. Zhu, Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 952. T. Chen, Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 587.
[185] Y.-X. Zhang, J. Fang, W. Li, Y. Shen, J.-D. Chen, Y. Li, H. Gu, [213] K. Timmo, M. Altosaar, M. Pilvet, V. Mikli, M. Grossberg,
S. Pelivani, M. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-X. Tang, ACS Nano 2019, 13, M. Danilson, T. Raadik, R. Josepson, J. Krustok, M. Kauk-Kuusik,
4686. J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 24281.
[186] G. Zeng, J. Zhang, X. Chen, H. Gu, Y. Li, Y. Li, Sci. China Chem. [214] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog.
2019, 62, 851. Photovoltaics 2014, 22, 1.
[187] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog. [215] M. A. Green, Y. Hishikawa, E. D. Dunlop, D. H. Levi, J. Hohl-
Photovoltaics 2015, 23, 1. Ebinger, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, Prog. Photovoltaics 2018, 26, 427.
[188] Z. Luo, C. Sun, S. Chen, Z.-G. Zhang, K. Wu, B. Qiu, C. Yang, Y. Li, [216] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog.
C. Yang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1800856. Photovoltaics 2015, 23, 805.
[189] F. Pan, C. Sun, Y. Li, D. Tang, Y. Zou, X. Li, S. Bai, X. Wei, M. Lv, [217] W. Li, S. Xu, Y. Dai, P. Ma, Y. Feng, W. Li, H. Luo, C. Yang, Mater.
X. Chen, Y. Li, Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 3400. Lett. 2019, 244, 43.
[190] L. Gao, Z.-G. Zhang, H. Bin, L. Xue, Y. Yang, C. Wang, F. Liu, [218] M. A. Green, Y. Hishikawa, E. D. Dunlop, D. H. Levi, J. Hohl-Ebinger,
T. P. Russell, Y. Li, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 8288. M. Yoshita, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2019,
[191] M. A. Green, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, D. H. Levi, 27, 3.
J. Hohl-Ebinger, A. W. H. Ho-Baillie, Prog. Photovoltaics 2017, 25, [219] T. Matsui, A. Bidiville, K. Maejima, H. Sai, T. Koida, T. Suezaki,
668. M. Matsumoto, K. Saito, I. Yoshida, M. Kondo, Appl. Phys. Lett.
[192] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog. 2015, 106, 053901.
Photovoltaics 2016, 24, 3. [220] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, Prog. Photovoltaics
[193] D. Baran, N. Gasparini, A. Wadsworth, C. H. Tan, N. Wehbe, 2010, 18, 346.
X. Song, Z. Hamid, W. Zhang, M. Neophytou, T. Kirchartz, [221] M. Ma, Q. Tang, H. Chen, B. He, P. Yang, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
C. J. Brabec, J. R. Durrant, I. McCulloch, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2059. Cells 2017, 160, 67.
[194] C. Li, J. Song, Y. Cai, G. Han, W. Zheng, Y. Yi, H. S. Ryu, H. Y. Woo, [222] J. H. Heo, D. H. Shin, D. H. Song, D. H. Kim, S. J. Lee, S. H. Im,
Y. Sun, J. Energy Chem. 2020, 40, 144. J. Mater. Chem. A 2018, 6, 8251.
[195] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog. [223] C. Wang, L. Guan, D. Zhao, Y. Yu, C. R. Grice, Z. Song,
Photovoltaics 2013, 21, 1. R. A. Awni, J. Chen, J. Wang, X. Zhao, Y. Yan, ACS Energy Lett. 2017,
[196] X. Liu, X. Du, J. Wang, C. Duan, X. Tang, T. Heumueller, G. Liu, 2, 2118.
Y. Li, Z. Wang, J. Wang, F. Liu, N. Li, C. J. Brabec, F. Huang, Y. Cao, [224] K. Huang, Y. Peng, Y. Gao, J. Shi, H. Li, X. Mo, H. Huang, Y. Gao,
Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1801699. L. Ding, J. Yang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1901419.
[225] X. Dai, Y. Deng, C. H. Van Brackle, S. Chen, P. N. Rudd, X. Xiao, [256] B. Chen, Y. Bai, Z. Yu, T. Li, X. Zheng, Q. Dong, L. Shen,
Y. Lin, B. Chen, J. Huang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903108. M. Boccard, A. Gruverman, Z. Holman, J. Huang, Adv. Energy
[226] Z. Wang, L. Zeng, C. Zhang, Y. Lu, S. Qiu, C. Wang, C. Liu, L. Pan, Mater. 2016, 6, 1601128.
S. Wu, J. Hu, G. Liang, P. Fan, H.-J. Egelhaaf, C. J. Brabec, F. Guo, [257] P. You, Z. Liu, Q. Tai, S. Liu, F. Yan, Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 3632.
Y. Mai, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2020, 30, 2001240. [258] J. H. Heo, H. J. Han, M. Lee, M. Song, D. H. Kim, S. H. Im, Energy
[227] J. Feng, X. Zhu, Z. Yang, X. Zhang, J. Niu, Z. Wang, S. Zuo, Environ. Sci. 2015, 8, 2922.
S. Priya, S. Liu, D. Yang, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1801418. [259] E. Della Gaspera, Y. Peng, Q. Hou, L. Spiccia, U. Bach,
[228] C. Liu, L. Zhang, X. Zhou, J. Gao, W. Chen, X. Wang, B. Xu, Adv. J. J. Jasieniak, Y.-B. Cheng, Nano Energy 2015, 13, 249.
Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1807604. [260] L. Yuan, Z. Wang, R. Duan, P. Huang, K. Zhang, Q. Chen,
[229] B. Cao, L. Yang, S. Jiang, H. Lin, N. Wang, X. Li, J. Mater. Chem. A N. K. Allam, Y. Zhou, B. Song, Y. Li, J. Mater. Chem. A 2018, 6, 19696.
2019, 7, 4960. [261] J. C. Yu, J. Sun, N. Chandrasekaran, C. J. Dunn, A. S. R. Chesman,
[230] D. Xin, S. Tie, X. Zheng, J. Zhu, W.-H. Zhang, J. Energy Chem. J. J. Jasieniak, Nano Energy 2020, 71, 104635.
2020, 46, 173. [262] C. O. Ramírez Quiroz, I. Levchuk, C. Bronnbauer, M. Salvador,
[231] M. Gao, X. Han, X. Zhan, P. Liu, Y. Shan, Y. Chen, J. Li, R. Zhang, K. Forberich, T. Heumüller, Y. Hou, P. Schweizer, E. Spiecker,
S. Wang, Q. Zhang, Y. Zheng, L. Chen, Mater. Lett. 2019, 248, 16. C. J. Brabec, J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 24071.
[232] C. W. Jang, J. M. Kim, S.-H. Choi, J. Alloys Compd. 2019, 775, 905. [263] Y. Dou, Z. Liu, Z. Wu, Y. Liu, J. Li, C. Leng, D. Fang, G. Liang,
[233] J. Xi, Z. Wu, K. Xi, H. Dong, B. Xia, T. Lei, F. Yuan, W. Wu, B. Jiao, J. Xiao, W. Li, X. Wei, F. Huang, Y.-B. Cheng, J. Zhong, Nano Energy
X. Hou, Nano Energy 2016, 26, 438. 2020, 71, 104567.
[234] W. Zhang, W. Song, J. Huang, L. Huang, T. Yan, J. Ge, R. Peng, [264] C.-Y. Chang, Y.-C. Chang, W.-K. Huang, K.-T. Lee, A.-C. Cho,
Z. Ge, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 22021. C.-C. Hsu, Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 7119.
[235] X. Chen, G. Xu, G. Zeng, H. Gu, H. Chen, H. Xu, H. Yao, Y. Li, [265] S. Xiao, H. Chen, F. Jiang, Y. Bai, Z. Zhu, T. Zhang, X. Zheng,
J. Hou, Y. Li, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1908478. G. Qian, C. Hu, Y. Zhou, Y. Qu, S. Yang, Adv. Mater. Interfaces
[236] T. Yan, W. Song, J. Huang, R. Peng, L. Huang, Z. Ge, Adv. Mater. 2016, 3, 1600484.
2019, 31, 1902210. [266] C.-Y. Chang, K.-T. Lee, W.-K. Huang, H.-Y. Siao, Y.-C. Chang, Chem.
[237] X. Dong, P. Shi, L. Sun, J. Li, F. Qin, S. Xiong, T. Liu, X. Jiang, Mater. 2015, 27, 5122.
Y. Zhou, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 1989. [267] J. W. Jung, C.-C. Chueh, A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Energy Mater. 2015, 5, 1500486.
[238] Y. Yang, J. Ou, X. Lv, C. Meng, Y. Mai, Sol. Energy 2019, 180, 57. [268] F. Guo, H. Azimi, Y. Hou, T. Przybilla, M. Hu, C. Bronnbauer,
[239] T. Xu, C. Gong, S. Wang, H. Lian, W. Lan, G. Lévêque, S. Langner, E. Spiecker, K. Forberich, C. J. Brabec, Nanoscale 2015,
B. Grandidier, J. Plain, R. Bachelot, B. Wei, F. Zhu, Sol. RRL 2020, 7, 1642.
4, 1900522. [269] H.-C. Kwon, A. Kim, H. Lee, D. Lee, S. Jeong, J. Moon, Adv. Energy
[240] X. Zhang, W. Guo, C. Pan, J. Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 6569. Mater. 2016, 6, 1601055.
[241] T. Yamaguchi, N. Tobe, D. Matsumoto, T. Nagai, H. Arakawa, Sol. [270] C. Roldán-Carmona, O. Malinkiewicz, R. Betancur, G. Longo,
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2010, 94, 812. C. Momblona, F. Jaramillo, L. Camacho, H. J. Bolink, Energy
[242] Y. Wang, P. Cheng, C. Feng, H. Zhang, W. Zhao, Sol. Energy 2019, Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 2968.
180, 423. [271] S. Bag, M. F. Durstock, Nano Energy 2016, 30, 542.
[243] H. Lee, J. Kim, D. Y. Kim, Y. Seo, Org. Electron. 2018, 52, 103. [272] G. Liu, C. Wu, Z. Zhang, Z. Chen, L. Xiao, B. Qu, Sol. RRL 2020,
[244] Y. Xiao, J. Wu, G. Yue, J. Lin, M. Huang, Z. Lan, Electrochim. Acta 4, 2000056.
2011, 56, 8545. [273] D. Liu, C. Yang, R. R. Lunt, Joule 2018, 2, 1827.
[245] L. Song, Y. Guan, P. Du, Y. Yang, F. Ko, J. Xiong, Sol. Energy Mater. [274] K.-S. Chen, J.-F. Salinas, H.-L. Yip, L. Huo, J. Hou, A. K. Y. Jen,
Sol. Cells 2016, 147, 134. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 9551.
[246] Q. Tang, H. Shen, H. Yao, K. Gao, Y. Jiang, Y. Li, Y. Liu, L. Zhang, [275] Z. Hu, Z. Wang, Q. An, F. Zhang, Sci. Bull. 2020, 65, 131.
Z. Ni, Q. Wei, Renewable Energy 2019, 133, 883. [276] T. Xiao, J. Wang, S. Yang, Y. Zhu, D. Li, Z. Wang, S. Feng, L. Bu,
[247] A. Chirilă, P. Reinhard, F. Pianezzi, P. Bloesch, A. R. Uhl, C. Fella, X. Zhan, G. Lu, J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 401.
L. Kranz, D. Keller, C. Gretener, H. Hagendorfer, D. Jaeger, R. Erni, [277] W. Song, B. Fanady, R. Peng, L. Hong, L. Wu, W. Zhang,
S. Nishiwaki, S. Buecheler, A. N. Tiwari, Nat. Mater. 2013, 12, 1107. T. Yan, T. Wu, S. Chen, Z. Ge, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 2000136.
[248] R. Kaczynski, J. Lee, J. V. Alsburg, B. Sang, U. Schoop, J. Britt, pre- [278] Y. Li, X. Guo, Z. Peng, B. Qu, H. Yan, H. Ade, M. Zhang,
sented at 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conf. (PVSC), June S. R. Forrest, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 21147.
2017. [279] M. Yao, T. Li, Y. Long, P. Shen, G. Wang, C. Li, J. Liu, W. Guo,
[249] K. Ruan, K. Ding, Y. Wang, S. Diao, Z. Shao, X. Zhang, J. Jie, Y. Wang, L. Shen, X. Zhan, Sci. Bull. 2020, 65, 217.
J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 14370. [280] Y. Bai, C. Zhao, X. Chen, S. Zhang, S. Zhang, T. Hayat, A. Alsaedi,
[250] S. Moon, K. Kim, Y. Kim, J. Heo, J. Lee, Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30107. Z. a. Tan, J. Hou, Y. Li, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 15887.
[251] H. P. Mahabaduge, W. L. Rance, J. M. Burst, M. O. Reese, [281] R. Xia, C. J. Brabec, H.-L. Yip, Y. Cao, Joule 2019, 3, 2241.
D. M. Meysing, C. A. Wolden, J. Li, J. D. Beach, T. A. Gessert, [282] Y. Li, C. Ji, Y. Qu, X. Huang, S. Hou, C.-Z. Li, L.-S. Liao, L. J. Guo,
W. K. Metzger, S. Garner, T. M. Barnes, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2015, 106, S. R. Forrest, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1903173.
133501. [283] W. Jose da Silva, H. P. Kim, A. Rashid bin Mohd Yusoff, J. Jang,
[252] L. Kranz, C. Gretener, J. Perrenoud, R. Schmitt, F. Pianezzi, Nanoscale 2013, 5, 9324.
F. La Mattina, P. Blösch, E. Cheah, A. Chirilă, C. M. Fella, [284] J. Lee, H. Cha, H. Yao, J. Hou, Y.-H. Suh, S. Jeong, K. Lee,
H. Hagendorfer, T. Jäger, S. Nishiwaki, A. R. Uhl, S. Buecheler, J. R. Durrant, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 32764.
A. N. Tiwari, Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2306. [285] Y. Zhao, R. R. Lunt, Adv. Energy Mater. 2013, 3, 1143.
[253] T. Söderström, F.-J. Haug, V. Terrazzoni-Daudrix, C. Ballif, J. Appl. [286] Y. Zhao, G. A. Meek, B. G. Levine, R. R. Lunt, Adv. Opt. Mater.
Phys. 2008, 103, 114509. 2014, 2, 606.
[254] C. Zhang, Y. Song, M. Wang, M. Yin, X. Zhu, L. Tian, H. Wang, [287] C. López-López, S. Colodrero, H. Míguez, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.
X. Chen, Z. Fan, L. Lu, D. Li, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1604720. 2014, 16, 663.
[255] C. Li, J. Sleppy, N. Dhasmana, M. Soliman, L. Tetard, J. Thomas, J. [288] D. Colonna, V. Capogna, A. Lembo, T. M. Brown, A. Reale,
Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 11648. A. D. Carlo, Appl. Phys. Express 2012, 5, 022303.
[289] M. Aftabuzzaman, C. K. Kim, H. Zhou, H. K. Kim, Nanoscale 2020, [304] M. Saliba, T. Matsui, J.-Y. Seo, K. Domanski, J.-P. Correa-Baena,
12, 1602. M. K. Nazeeruddin, S. M. Zakeeruddin, W. Tress, A. Abate,
[290] K. Kim, S. K. Nam, J. H. Moon, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 5277. A. Hagfeldt, M. Grätzel, Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 1989.
[291] M. J. Shin, J. H. Jo, A. Cho, J. Gwak, J. H. Yun, K. Kim, S. K. Ahn, [305] K. Domanski, E. A. Alharbi, A. Hagfeldt, M. Grätzel, W. Tress, Nat.
J. H. Park, J. Yoo, I. Jeong, B.-H. Choi, J.-S. Cho, Sol. Energy 2019, 181, 276. Energy 2018, 3, 61.
[292] K. Kim, W. N. Shafarman, Nano Energy 2016, 30, 488. [306] K. A. Bush, A. F. Palmstrom, Z. J. Yu, M. Boccard, R. Cheacharoen,
[293] J.-S. Cho, Y. H. Seo, B.-H. Choi, A. Cho, A. Lee, M. J. Shin, K. Kim, J. P. Mailoa, D. P. McMeekin, R. L. Z. Hoye, C. D. Bailie, T. Leijtens,
S. K. Ahn, J. H. Park, J. Yoo, D. Shin, I. Jeong, J. Gwak, Sol. Energy I. M. Peters, M. C. Minichetti, N. Rolston, R. Prasanna, S. Sofia,
Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 202, 110078. D. Harwood, W. Ma, F. Moghadam, H. J. Snaith, T. Buonassisi,
[294] J. W. Lim, S. H. Lee, D. J. Lee, Y. J. Lee, S. J. Yun, Thin Solid Films Z. C. Holman, S. F. Bent, M. D. McGehee, Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 17009.
2013, 547, 212. [307] P. Wang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Q. Jiang, Q. Ye, Z. Chu, X. Li, X. Yang,
[295] S. H. Moon, S. J. Park, Y. J. Hwang, D.-K. Lee, Y. Cho, D.-W. Kim, Z. Yin, J. You, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2225.
B. K. Min, Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4408. [308] X. Du, T. Heumueller, W. Gruber, A. Classen, T. Unruh, N. Li,
[296] J. Wook Lim, M. Shin, D. J. Lee, S. Hyun Lee, S. Jin Yun, Sol. Energy C. J. Brabec, Joule 2019, 3, 215.
Mater. Sol. Cells 2014, 128, 301. [309] C. Xie, T. Heumüller, W. Gruber, X. Tang, A. Classen, I. Schuldes,
[297] M. Saifullah, S. Ahn, J. Gwak, S. Ahn, K. Kim, J. Cho, J. H. Park, M. Bidwell, A. Späth, R. H. Fink, T. Unruh, I. McCulloch, N. Li,
Y. J. Eo, A. Cho, J.-S. Yoo, J. H. Yun, J. Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 10542. C. J. Brabec, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 5335.
[298] A. Mutalikdesai, S. K. Ramasesha, Thin Solid Films 2017, 632, 73. [310] A. Classen, T. Heumueller, I. Wabra, J. Gerner, Y. He, L. Einsiedler,
[299] D. Bi, X. Li, J. V. Milić, D. J. Kubicki, N. Pellet, J. Luo, T. LaGrange, N. Li, G. J. Matt, A. Osvet, X. Du, A. Hirsch, C. J. Brabec, Adv.
P. Mettraux, L. Emsley, S. M. Zakeeruddin, M. Grätzel, Nat. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1902124.
Commun. 2018, 9, 4482. [311] M. Raïssi, S. Leroy-Lhez, B. Ratier, Org. Electron. 2016, 37, 183.
[300] S. Bai, P. Da, C. Li, Z. Wang, Z. Yuan, F. Fu, M. Kawecki, X. Liu, [312] W. Xiang, W. Huang, U. Bach, L. Spiccia, Chem. Commun. 2013,
N. Sakai, J. T.-W. Wang, S. Huettner, S. Buecheler, M. Fahlman, 49, 8997.
F. Gao, H. J. Snaith, Nature 2019, 571, 245. [313] S. G. Hashmi, M. Özkan, J. Halme, S. M. Zakeeruddin, J. Paltakari,
[301] A. D. Jodlowski, C. Roldán-Carmona, G. Grancini, M. Salado, M. Grätzel, P. D. Lund, Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 2453.
M. Ralaiarisoa, S. Ahmad, N. Koch, L. Camacho, G. de Miguel, [314] R. Jiang, A. Anderson, P. R. F. Barnes, L. Xiaoe, C. Law,
M. K. Nazeeruddin, Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 972. B. C. O'Regan, J. Mater. Chem. A 2014, 2, 4751.
[302] S. Yang, S. Chen, E. Mosconi, Y. Fang, X. Xiao, C. Wang, Y. Zhou, [315] S. M. Seo, C. K. Kim, H. K. Kim, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 14743.
Z. Yu, J. Zhao, Y. Gao, F. De Angelis, J. Huang, Science 2019, 365, 473. [316] J. Xia, Q. Wang, M. Chen, W. Li, J. Liu, J. Chen, H. Wu, S. Fan, Elec-
[303] J. A. Christians, P. Schulz, J. S. Tinkham, T. H. Schloemer, trochim. Acta 2019, 307, 422.
S. P. Harvey, B. J. Tremolet de Villers, A. Sellinger, J. J. Berry, [317] J. Gao, M. Bhagavathi Achari, L. Kloo, Chem. Commun. 2014, 50,
J. M. Luther, Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 68. 6249.
Osbel Almora graduated of Physics from the University of Havana, Cuba, in 2013 and received his
Ph.D. in 2020 from both the Universitat Jaume I of Castelló, Spain, and the Friedrich-Alexander
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), in Germany. His main research interests are the charac-
terization and modeling of energy materials and devices, e.g., perovskite solar cells, and more
recently he is been focused on the development of optoelectronic characterization techniques,
such as the light intensity modulated impedance spectroscopy (LIMIS). On December 4, 2019, he
presented the initiating concept for the "Emerging PV reports" during a seminar at FAU.
Derya Baran received her Ph.D. from Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg,

Germany in 2014. She worked at Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany and the Center for Plastic
Electronics, Imperial College London, UK prior to joining KAUST as an assistant professor in
2017. Her research group, OMEGALAB focuses on solution processable organic/hybrid soft
materials for electronic devices including solar cells and thermoelectric devices.
Guillermo C. Bazan received his B.Sc. (summa cum laude) from the University of Ottawa. His
Ph.D. studies were carried out at MIT under the guidance of Nobel Laureate Richard R. Schrock.
He was a postdoctoral associate at the California Institute of Technology with Professor John E.
Bercaw. Gui joined the University of Rochester in 1992, and the University of California, Santa
Barbara in 1998, where he held appointments in the Departments of Chemistry & Biochemistry
and Materials. In 2020, Gui moved to the National University of Singapore, as a member of the
Chemistry and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Departments.
Christian Berger received the M.Sc. Degree in Computer Science in 2016 from the Friedrich-
Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany where he is currently pursuing his Ph.D. His
research focuses on the automation of scientific laboratory processes by combining mechanical
engineering, electrical engineering and computer science. As part of the Research Team High
Throughput Materials and Devices at the Helmholtz Institute Erlangen-Nürnberg he is the lead
architect of AMANDA (Autonomous Materials and Device Application Platform).
Carlos I. Cabrera received his Ph.D. in Physics from the Autonomous University of Zacatecas,
Mexico, in 2018, working on computational modeling of quantum heterostructure solar cells. He
joined the Collaboratory for Epitaxy of Nanomaterials (CEN) at Boise State University as a vis-
iting graduate research assistant, modeling self-assembled QD nanostructures. He then joined
the CInC, Autonomous University of the State of Morelos, as a postdoctoral research fellow. He
is currently a researcher at COZCyT and his research interests include solar cells, self-assembled
QD nanostructures, and 2D materials for optoelectronic applications.
Kylie R. Catchpole is professor in the Research School of Electrical, Energy and Materials
Engineering at the Australian National University. She has research interests in solar cells and
solar fuels as well as the broader energy transition.
Sule Erten-Ela received her Ph.D. degree in 2004 from the Ege University in Turkey. She received
a full professor position in 2015 in the Ege University-Solar Energy Institute. Şule Erten Ela has
been the Head of the Energy Department since 2016. Since 2019, she has been working as the
director of Solar Energy Institute at Ege University. She is currently working as a professor at the
Ege University, Institute of Solar Energy, Department of Energy.
Fei Guo received his Ph.D. in Material Science from Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-
Nuremberg, Germany in 2015. After a year’s postdoctoral training at the group of Prof. Christoph
J. Brabec, he joined Jinan University as a full professor in March 2017. His current research inter-
ests focus on printed optoelectronic devices based on perovskites and organic semiconductors.
Jens Hauch received the B.A. degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Champaign, IL, USA, in 1992, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX, USA, in 1998, both in physics. Since 2002, he has been active in the development of PV tech-
nologies in various positions at Siemens AG, Konarka Technologies, Energie Campus Nuremberg
and ZAE Bayern. Currently he is the head of the Research Unit “High Throughput Methods in
Photovoltaics” at the Helmholtz Institute Erlangen-Nuremberg for Renewable Energies.
Anita W. Y. Ho-Baillie is the John Hooke Chair of Nanoscience at the University of Sydney.
She completed her Bachelor of Engineering on Co-op scholarship (2001) and Ph.D. (2005) at
University of New South Wales. Her research interests include engineering of solar materials
and devices at nanoscale for high performance durable single junction and multi junction
tandem cells for a wide range of applications. Her achievements include setting several solar cell
energy efficiency world records and reporting of highly durable perovskite solar cells passing the
International Electrotechnical Commission terrestrial photovoltaic module (IEC61215) standard
damp heat and thermal cycling tests.
T. Jesper Jacobsson obtained a Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemistry at Uppsala University in 2014 with a
project focusing on ZnO quantum dots and CIGS-based devices for solar hydrogen production.
After his Ph.D., he has worked as a postdoc at EPFL, Cambridge University, and Uppsala University
with experimental development of perovskite solar cells. He is currently working at Helmholtz
Zentrum for Materials and Energy in Berlin where he aims at gathering and classifying all published
perovskite device data and developing standards and digital infrastructure for reporting new solar
cell data.
Rene A. J. Janssen is a university professor in chemistry and physics at the Eindhoven University of
Technology (TU/e) where he has researched molecular semiconductor materials and their appli-
cation to organic and perovskite solar cells. His work combines organic and polymer synthesis,
optical spectroscopy, electrochemistry, and morphological studies with the design, fabrication and
opto-electronic characterization of devices with the aim of enhancing performance levels.
Thomas Kirchartz is a professor in the department of Electrical Engineering and Information

Technology at the University Duisburg-Essen (since 2013). In addition, he is the head of the depart-
ment of Analytics and Simulation and the group for organic and hybrid solar cells at the Research
Centre Jülich (Institute for Energy and Climate Research). Previously he was a junior research fellow
at Imperial College London (2010–2013) and received a Dr.Ing. from RWTH Aachen (2009). His
research interests include the fundamental understanding of photovoltaic devices, their characteri-
zation and simulation and the development of solution-processable solar cells.
Nikos Kopidakis is a research scientist at NREL and the technical lead of the PV Cell and Module
performance group. He has over 20 years of experience in PV research, including silicon, dyesensi-
tized and organic PV. His interests cover the performance characterization of PV cells and modules
of any size and technology and new measurement techniques for novel and emerging PV. He has
previously worked on new materials for PV applications and in spectroscopic techniques for charac-
terizing their photophysics.
Yongfang Li is a professor in the Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICCAS)

and at the Soochow University. He received his Ph.D. degree in the department of Chemistry
from Fudan University in 1986, followed by postdoctoral research at ICCAS from 1986 to 1988.
He became a staff in 1988 and was promoted to professor in 1993 in ICCAS. He was elected as a
member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2013. His present research field is photovoltaic
materials and devices for polymer solar cells.
Maria A. Loi is full professor and chair of Photophysics and OptoElectronics at the University of
Groningen, The Netherlands. She studied Physics at the University of Cagliari in Italy where she
received her Ph.D. (2001). Before joining the University of Groningen in 2006 she has been member
of the Linz Institute for Organic Solar cells, of the University of Linz, Austria and of the Institute for
Nanostructured Materials of the Italian National Research Council in Bologna. Her current research
interest focuses on the understanding of the physical properties of new semiconductors and of
optoelectronic devices made with them.
Richard R. Lunt is the Johansen Crosby endowed professor at Michigan State University in the
Departments of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science and Physics. He earned his B.S. from
the University of Delaware (2000) and his Ph.D. from Princeton University (2010). He then worked
as a post-doctoral researcher at MIT (2011). His group focuses on understanding and exploiting
excitonic photophysics and molecular crystal growth to develop unique thin film optoelectronic
devices. He is known for his pioneering work in developing transparent solar cells and is cofounder
of Ubiquitous Energy Inc., which is working to commercialize transparent solar cells.
Xavier Mathew has been a senior scientist and professor at the Instituto de Energías Renovables
(IER) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) since 1998. His research inter-
ests include materials for photovoltaic applications and in particular devices based on CdTe and
perovskites.
Michael D. McGehee is a professor in the Chemical and Biological Engineering Department at

the University of Colorado Boulder. He is the associate director of the Materials Science and
Engineering Program and has a joint appointment at the National Renewable Energy Lab. He
was a professor in the Materials Science and Engineering Department at Stanford University for
18 years and a senior fellow of the Precourt Institute for Energy. His current research interests are
developing new materials for smart windows and solar cells. He received his B.Sc. from Princeton
University and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Jie Min received his M.S. degree (2011) under the supervision of Prof. Yongfang Li at the Institute
of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICCAS) as a joint-training Master student, and
obtained his Ph.D. (2015) under the supervision of Prof. Christoph J. Brabec from Friedrich-
Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU). After more than one year of postdoctoral research
in Prof. Brabec’s group, he joined Wuhan University as a full professor in 2017. His current
research focuses on the development of organic materials and stable devices for the industrializa-
tion of next-generation photovoltaics.
David B. Mitzi is the Simon family professor at Duke University, with appointments to the
Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Chemistry. He received his
B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and Engineering Physics from Princeton University (1985) and
his Ph.D. in Applied Physics from Stanford University (1990). Prior to joining the faculty at Duke
(2014), Dr. Mitzi spent 23 years at IBM’s Watson Research Center, where his focus was on the
search for and application of new electronic materials, including organic -inorganic perovskites and
inorganic materials for photovoltaic, LED, transistor and memory applications.
Mohammad K. Nazeeruddin received his Ph.D. degree in Inorganic Chemistry from Osmania
University Hyderabad, India. Currently, he is a professor of Chemistry at Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Lausanne, and his research focuses on perovskite and dye-sensitized solar cells and
light-emitting diodes. His group is involved in developing stable perovskite solar cells by composi-
tional and interface engineering. He was appointed as World Class University (WCU) professor at
Korea University, and Adjunct Professor at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah.
Jenny Nelson is a professor of physics at Imperial College London, where she has researched novel
varieties of material for use in solar cells since 1989. Her current research is focused on under-
standing the properties of molecular and hybrid semiconductor materials and their application to
solar energy conversion. This work combines fundamental electrical, spectroscopic, and structural
studies of molecular electronic materials with numerical modeling and device studies, for optimizing
the performance of solar cells and other devices. She also works with the Grantham Institute for
Climate Change at Imperial to explore the mitigation potential of renewable energy technologies.
Ana F. Nogueira obtained her Bachelor in Chemistry from the University of Sao Paulo (1996) and
Master (1998) and Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Campinas (2001). She worked as a
postdoctorate fellow at the Imperial College, UK, (2001-2002) and as visiting researcher at Stanford
University (2017-2018). She is currently a professor in the Chemistry Institute at UNICAMP and
director of the Center for Innovation on New Energies (CINE). Her research focuses on the develop-
ment of functional (nano)materials and their application in solar energy conversion. She has experi-
ence on perovskite solar cells, perovskite quantum materials, and dense energy carriers.
Ulrich W. Paetzold leads the research group Advanced Optics and Materials for Next Generation
Photovoltaics at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). He was a doctoral student at
Forschungszentrum Jülich and received his Ph.D. in Physics from RWTH Aachen University, then
continued as a postdoc at IMEC in Leuven. His research focusses on the interaction between light
and structured matter for the purpose of engineering novel optical concepts and nanophotonic
materials for solar energy harvesting. He is particularly interested in perovskite thin-film photovol-
taics and perovskite based multijunction photovoltaics.
Nam-Gyu Park is a professor and SKKU-Fellow at the School of Chemical Engineering,

Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU). He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from Seoul
National University (SNU) in 1988, 1992, and 1995, respectively. He worked at ICMCB-CNRS, France,
and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), USA, from 1996 to 1999 as a postdoctoral
researcher. He worked as the director of Solar Cell Research Center at the Korea Institute of Science
and Technology (KIST) in Korea before joining SKKU as a full professor in 2009. He is the pioneer of
the solid-state perovskite solar cell, discovered in 2012.
Barry P. Rand earned a BE in electrical engineering from The Cooper Union in 2001. Then he
received M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Princeton University, in 2003 and
2007, respectively. He is in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Andlinger Center for Energy
and the Environment at Princeton University, currently as an associate professor. His research inter-
ests highlight the border between electrical engineering, materials science, chemistry, and applied
physics, covering electronic and optoelectronic thin-films and devices.
Uwe Rau is currently director of the Institute for Energy and Climate Research-5 (Photovoltaics)
at Research Centre Jülich. He is also professor at RWTH Aachen, Faculty of Electrical Engineering
and Information Technology, where he holds the chair of photovoltaics. Previously, he was senior
researcher at the University Stuttgart as well as post-doc at the University Bayreuth and at the
Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart. His research interest covers electronic
and optical properties of semiconductors and semiconductor devices, especially characterization,
simulation, and technology of solar cells and solar modules.
Henry J. Snaith is a Professor of Physics and Group Leader of the Photovoltaics and Optoelectronics
Device group at the University of Oxford. He has pioneered the development of hybrid materials for
energy and photovoltaics through an interdisciplinary combination of materials synthesis, device
development, advanced optoelectronic characterizations and theoretical studies. He has created new
materials with advanced functionality and enhanced understanding of fundamental mechanisms. He
is the cofounder and chief scientific officer of Oxford PV, a successful startup company founded to
commercialize the perovskite solar cell technology.
Eva Unger is a young investigator group leader at Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin (Germany) and holds
an assistant professor position at the Department of Chemistry at Lund University (Sweden). She
has a Ph.D. degree from Uppsala University (Sweden) where she worked on Excitonic Dye Solar
Cells. During her postdoctoral research at Stanford University (USA) she investigated dynamic
hysteresis phenomena in hybrid Perovskite Solar Cell devices. Her current research focusses on
scalable process development for the manufacturing of larger area Perovskite Solar Cells and the
rationalization of material formation mechanisms from solutions to solid state thin films.
Lídice Vaillant-Roca is the head of the Photovoltaic Research Laboratory at the University of Havana,
Cuba. She received her Ph.D. in 2008 from both the University of Havana, and the University of
Parma, Italy. She was a postdoc researcher at ISEFraunhofer and Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat, Freiburg
(2011) and invited professor at the Nime Universite, France, and the Politecnico di Torino, Italy
(2017). Her research focuses on the study of novel materials and low-cost fabrication techniques to
obtain and improve the performance of thin film and nanostructured solar cells.
Hin-Lap Yip is a professor in the State Key Laboratory of Luminescent Materials and Devices and
the Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) Department in South China University of Technology
(SCUT). He got his B.Sc. and M.Phil. degrees in Materials Science from the Chinese University of
Hong Kong, and completed his Ph.D. degree in MSE in 2008 at the University of Washington, Seattle.
He joined SCUT in 2013 as full Professor. His current research focuses on the use of an integrated
approach combining materials, interface, and device engineering to improve both polymer and
perovskite optoelectronic devices.
Christoph J. Brabec received his Ph.D. (1995) from Linz University, Austria, and joined the group
of Nobel Prize laureate Alan Heeger at UC Santa Barbara (USA) for a sabbatical. He joined the
SIEMENS research labs (project leader, 2001), Konarka (CTO, 2004), the Erlangen-Nuremberg-
University (professor for material science, 2009), the ZAE Bayern e.V. (scientific director, 2010-
2020), the Interdisciplinary Center for Nanostructured Films (spokesman, 2013-2016), the
Forschungszentrum Julich (director, 2018-2023) and the University of Groningen (honorary professor,
2018-2023). His research interests include all aspects of solution processing organic, hybrid, and
inorganics semiconductor devices with a focus on photovoltaics and renewable energy systems.

Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress Report

Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic

Dr. O. Almora, Prof. C. J. Brabec Prof. D. Baran

Prof. K. R. Catchpole Prof. M. D. McGehee

be mentioned, as well as the measurement temperature, atmos- E (eV)

No. Information Figure/data

manuscript or in the supporting information of the published

STEY (Wh cm-2)

15 15 information to be considered for inclusion in future versions of

“Reporting Device Efficiency of Emerging PV Materials” is

(a) (c) 100

(a) 100 (c) 100

Perovskite solar cells Dye sensitized solar cells

Jsc (mA cm-2)

2015 Si a-Si 2015

10.1. Highest Efficiency Research Solar Cells Tables

1.25 20.7 843 30.6 80.2 (FASnI3)0.6(MAPbI3)0.4 [66]

1.57 23.0 1170 24.1 81.6 Cs0.05(FA0.92MA0.08)0.95 [36]

1.57 20.6 1120 22.8 80.5 (FAPbI3)1−x(MAPbBr3)x [103]

1.65 16.2 1109 19.6 74.2 MAPbI1−xBrx [113]b)

1.75 19.8 1310 19.4 78.0 FA0.83Cs0.17Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 [122]

1.77 18.6 1234 18.3 82.5 CsPbI3−xBrx [124]

1.85 15.0 1296 15.6 74.2 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI1.5Br1.5 [119]

1.86 17.0 1340 15.9 79.8 CsPb(I0.75Br0.25)3-0.5FAOAc [128]

1.87 14.0 1280 14.0 78.1 CsPb0.8Ba0.2I2Br [129]

1.87 13.7 1220 14.6 76.8 CsPb0.95Eu0.05I2Br [130]

1.88 15.3 1250 15.4 79.0 CsPbI2Br [131]

1.89 15.6 1300 15.3 78.3 CsPbI2−xBr(Ac)x [132]

1.90 16.1 1320 15.3 79.7 CsPbI2Br [133]

1.91 14.4 1312 15.6 70.1 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI1.2Br1.8 [119]

1.91 13.5 1177 14.3 79.9 CsPbI2Br [134]

1.91 2.0 620 5.4 60.8 MA3Sb2I9+HI [135]b)

1.94 4.3 630 10.7 63.8 Ag3BiI6 [136]

1.94 2.2 670 5.2 62.7 AgBiI4 [137]

1.95 2.6 690 6.0 62.4 AgBiI5 [137]

1.97 1.1 850 2.2 59.6 Cs3Bi2I9 [138]

1.98 8.3 1080 12.3 62.0 CsPbIBr2 [139]

2.00 9.6 1185 11.2 72.3 Cs0.15FA0.85Pb(I0.3Br0.7)3 [140]

2.03 2.8 836 6.4 52.7 MAPb(I0.41Br0.59)3 [115]

2.04 10.3 1340 9.7 79.2 MAPb(I0.3Br0.7)xCl3−x(Br) [141]

2.05 6.1 1450 5.4 77.1 MAPbIBr2 [142]

2.09 10.2 1270 11.5 69.4 CsPbIBr2 [143]

2.10 10.7 1261 11.8 72.0 CsPbIBr2 [144]

2.11 9.2 1200 10.2 74.6 GAI-DEE-CsPbIBr2 [145]

2.14 3.1 650 8.1 58.4 MASbSI2 [146]

2.15 4.4 1084 6.3 64.8 (FA0.85MA0.15Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3) [147]

2.19 2.0 1051 3.0 69.5 (FA0.85MA0.15Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3) [147]

2.20 1.2 610 3.6 55.9 Cs3Sb2I9 [148]

2.27 10.6 1552 8.9 76.5 FAPbBr3 [149]

2.31 9.7 1458 8.12 81.9 CsPbBr3 [150]

2.32 10.1 1653 7.72 79.1 MAPbBr3 [125]

2.33 8.2 1470 7.3 76.1 CsPbBr3 [151]

2.34 9.7 1584 7.4 82.8 CsPbBr3 [152]

2.35 10.7 1622 7.9 83.5 CsPbBr3 [153]

2.35 10.6 1610 7.8 84.4 CsSnBr3 [154]

2.36 4.0 1130 5.5 63.6 CsPbBr2.9I0.1 [155]

2.37 2.2 690 5.0 63.5 MA3Sb2ClxI9−x [156]

2.38 8.1 1490 6.9 78.8 CsPbBr3 [157]

2.39 10.3 1580 8.2 80.0 Cs0.91Rb0.09PbBr3 [158]