Reply to Comment on “Enhanced Charge Selectivity via Anodic-C60 Layer Reduces Nonradiative Losses in Organic Solar Cells”

Abstract

W e would like to start off by thanking the authors of the comment, Wetzelaer and Blom, for their very helpful and constructive analysis. They present an interesting alternative view on an important and timely research topic. Before discussing the mechanism suggested in their comment, from the viewpoint of our experimental results, we would like to summarize our findings. In our work, 1 we experimentally showed that • The contact between donor molecules in the active layer of organic solar cells (OSCs) and a molybdenum oxide (MoO 3) hole extraction layer (HEL) causes an increase in nonradiative recombination losses, proportional to the extent of contacts. • We attributed these losses to surface recombination, and we proved that the losses can be suppressed by inserting a thin interfacial fullerene layer at the anode side. • Analyzing various donor−acceptor mixing ratios, with and without a fullerene-modified HEL, we decoupled and quantified the contribution from surface recombi-nation on the total nonradiative losses occurring in these devices. In the best case, we showed an improvement of 150 meV in V OC , as compared to the reference device. This demonstrates that surface recombination is a considerable contributor to nonradiative voltage losses in these solar cells, which are otherwise commonly occurring through charge-transfer states or energetic trap states because of defects in the bulk. We consider this the main result of our work. • Measurements by a modified charge extraction by linearly increasing voltage (CELIV) technique provided evidence that the improvement in V OC could be attributed to an enhanced built-in potential (V bi), reducing the presence of minority charge carriers at the respective electrodes. Although the authors of the comment in general agree with our experimental findings, they argue that the V bi does not play a direct role in suppressing the surface recombination of minority carriers. The introduction of a C 60 interlayer, they argue, renders the MoO 3 contact ohmic. 2 The reduced anodic injection barrier simultaneously increases the V bi , minimizes nonradiative voltage losses upon the extraction of majority carriers (holes), and suppresses minority-carrier (electron) surface recombination, the latter being the result of hole accumulation and associated band bending near the ohmic hole contact. Therefore, the ohmic contact formation suppresses both majority-and minority-carrier surface recombination losses, whereas the built-in voltage per se, they reason, does not play a major role. It is our opinion that the authors of the comment provide a very reasonable alternative explanation for the reduced surface recombination. Injection barriers at the contacts are well-known to be detrimental for the performance of OSC as being a major cause of a reduced V bi and increased surface recombination. Injection barriers have been shown to reduce not only the V OC but also the fill factor (FF), sometimes even leading to s-shaped JV curves. 3−5 It has been suggested that, in the case of very large injection barriers, the V OC is given by V bi. 6,7 Although V bi is determined by the difference in the work functions of the contacts, because of Fermi level pinning and the associated band bending, the built-in potential across the active layer, the effective V bi , typically cannot exceed the effective gap of the bulk-heterojunction blend. In other words, the anode Fermi level pins to the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the donor, whereas the cathode pins to the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the acceptor. In addition, because of disorder, Fermi level pinning typically occurs to discrete gap or tail states, causing additional band bending, which further limits the effective V bi. 8,9 If there is an injection barrier at one contact, an increase or decrease in this barrier is directly reflected in the V bi. 5