Comparative study of PTB7:PC71BM based polymer solar cells fabricated under different working environments

  • Ram Datt
  • Sandeep AryaEmail author
  • Swati Bishnoi
  • Ramashanker Gupta
  • Vinay Gupta
  • Ajit Khosla
Technical Paper


In this article, we have evaluated the performance of inverted organic solar cells (OSCs) fabricated under ambient air and inert environment. Here, poly([4,8-bis[(2-ethylhexyl)oxy]benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′]dithiophene-2,6-diyl]{3-fluoro-2-[(2-ethylhexyl)carbonyl]thieno[3,4-b]thiophenediyl}) (PTB7) donor with [6,6]-phenyl C70-butyric acid methyl ester (PC71BM) acceptor were employed as a photoactive layer. The calculated power conversion efficiency (PCE) from current–voltage (J–V) characteristics for a device fabricated under an inert environment is 6.90% as compared to 3.96% for a device fabricated in ambient condition (25 °C, 100 kPa). The results revealed that the device processed in ambient conditions degrades the photovoltaic performance parameters, and the PCE decreased by 42.62% as compared to the devices fabricated in an inert environment. Along with this, we have also discussed in detail, the effect of the working environment on photoactive layers by Raman spectroscopy. The UV–Vis spectroscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) techniques are presented to illustrate the optical properties and morphology of the photo-active layer respectively.



Author Ram Datt would like to acknowledge the financial support from UGC-SRF. We are thankful to Dr. Ritu Srivastva and Dr. Nita Dilawar for providing AFM imaging and Raman Spectroscopy facilities, respectively. Authors Sandeep Arya and Swati Bishnoi acknowledge INSA-Visiting Scientist fellowship and CSIR-RA (31/1(0494)/2018-EMR-I), respectively.


  1. Alem S, Wakim S, Lu J et al (2012) Degradation mechanism of benzodithiophene-based conjugated polymers when exposed to light in air. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 4:2993–2998. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balderrama VS, Estrada M, Viterisi A et al (2013) Correlation between P3HT inter-chain structure and JSC of P3HT:PC[70]BM blends for solar cells. Microelectron Reliab 53:560–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balderrama VS, Avila-Herrera F, Sanchez JG et al (2016) Organic solar cells toward the fabrication under air environment. IEEE J Photovolt 6:491–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bashahu M, Habyarimana A (1995) Revew and test of method for determination of the solar cell series. Renew Energy 6:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brabec CJ (2004) Organic photovoltaics: technology and market. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 83:273–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corazza M, Rolston N, Dauskardt RH, Beliatis M, Krebs FC, Gevorgyan SA (2016) Role of stress factors on the adhesion of interfaces in R2R fabricated organic photovoltaics Adv. Energy Mater 6:1501927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta V, Lai LF, Datt R et al (2016) Dithienogermole-based solution-processed molecular solar cells with efficiency over 9%. Chem Commun 52:8596–8599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. He X, Mukherjee S, Watkins S et al (2014) Influence of fluorination and molecular weight on the morphology and performance of PTB7:PC 71 BM solar cells. J Phys Chem C 118:9918–9929. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu X, Wang M, Huang F et al (2013) 23% enhanced efficiency of polymer solar cells processed with 1-chloronaphthalene as the solvent additive. Synth Met 164:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huang D, Li Y, Xu Z et al (2015) Enhanced performance and morphological evolution of PTB7:PC 71 BM polymer solar cells by using solvent mixtures with different additives. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17:8053–8060. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Noh J, Jeong S, Lee J-Y (2016) Ultrafast formation of air-processable and high-quality polymer films on an aqueous substrate. Nat Commun 7:12374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Razzell-Hollis J, Wade J, Tsoi WC et al (2014) Photochemical stability of high efficiency PTB7:PC 70 BM solar cell blends. J Mater Chem A 2:20189–20195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang S-H, Hsiao Y-J, Fang T-H et al (2014) Effects of ITO film annealing temperature on hybrid solar cell performance. Microsyst Technol 20:1181–1185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang J, Lu C, Higashihara T, Chen W-C (2017) All-conjugated donor–acceptor graft/block copolymers as single active components and surfactants in all-polymer solar cells. Microsyst Technol 23:1183–1189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Xu X, Yu T, Bi Z et al (2018) Realizing over 13% efficiency in green-solvent-processed nonfullerene organic solar cells enabled by 1,3,4-thiadiazole-based wide-bandgap copolymers. Adv Mater 30:1703973. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhang H, Tan W-Y, Fladischer S et al (2016) Roll to roll compatible fabrication of inverted organic solar cells with a self-organized charge selective cathode interfacial layer. J Mater Chem A 4:5032–5038. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhao W, Li S, Yao H et al (2017) Molecular optimization enables over 13% efficiency in organic solar cells. J Am Chem Soc 139:7148–7151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Materials and Devices DivisionCSIR-National Physical LaboratoryNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR)GhaziabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsUniversity of JammuJammuIndia
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Masdar InstituteKhalifa University of Science and TechnologyMasdar CityUnited Arab Emirates
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringYamagata UniversityYonezawaJapan

Personalised recommendations