Stability_Challenges_for_a_Highly_Efficient_Perovs (1).pdf
marselhavare1
8 views
19 slides
Oct 26, 2025
Slide 1 of 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
About This Presentation
Perovskite materials offer excellent light absorption, charge-carrier mobilities, and lifetimes, resulting in high device efficiencies with opportunities to realize a low-cost, industry-scalable technology. Achieving this potential will require us to overcome barriers related to stability and enviro...
Slide Content
Stability Challenges for a Highly Efficient Perovskite/Silicon
Tandem Solar Cell: A Review
Syed Azkar Ul Hasan, Muhammad Aleem Zahid, Sangheon Park,* and Junsin Yi*
1. Introduction
From 2011 to 2023, commercial photovoltaic (PV) systems
enhanced the global power output from 13 to 183 GW, following
the 30% average annual global growth.
[1]
Another promising fac-
tor contributing to unprecedented commercial viability is the
40% reduced costs and twice the production capacity, known
as the learning rate of PV modules. Within the next decade,
annual production growth will be up to 1.5–3 TW per year
and afterward, following plateau at multi-
terawatt per year production in 2050.
This continuous performance enhance-
ment, along with the reduced cost-per-watt
peak, is not history. Instead, this tendency
will still be relevant in the years to come.
Si is a proven market leader in the PV
community, capturing 92% of the global
production in 2020. To date, the power
conversion efficiency (PCE) of the Si in
the case of monofacial and bifacial
modules is 22.8% and 24%, respectively.
Incorporating passivating contact like
tunnel oxide passivating contact (TOPCon)
and interdigitated back contacts architec-
ture made higher efficiency possible
for single-junction Si solar cells.
[2–4]
As
per the prediction of the International
Technology Roadmap of Photovoltaics,
the growth of Si module efficiency will slow
down, with the anticipated monofacial
module efficiency of 24% only by 2030.
[?]
As the balance of system (BOS) cost
has a substantial fraction of the total cost
of PV installations, PCE enhancement
becomes prominent for the economics of
commercial PV systems. Previously, the module cost was 31%
of the entire cost of the PV system, and 40% composed of
BOS components that include land, wiring, structures, and
mounting, and the cost varies with scale.
[5]
Therefore, higher
module efficiency implies enhanced energy yield per unit area,
minimizing the size of the module and reducing BOS costs. This
performance enhancement substantially affects the levelized cost
of electricity (LCOE) for determining market competitiveness.
Due to the competitive advantages of perovskites and market-
driven Si solar cells, the industry has perceived the perovskite–Si
tandem as the market leader in the coming years. Si-based pilot
industry lines have the potential for collaboration with perov-
skites solar cell and perceived as perfect paraphernalia for
perovskites-Si tandem solar cells to deal with the challenges
set by the PV community. The efficiency and stability perspective
of PV devices is paramount to converting challenging milestones
into future opportunities. Tandem configuration based solar cells
inherent 40% theoretical efficiencies that exceed the theoretical
efficiencies of a single-junction Si solar cell.
[6,7]
LONGi has
achieved a record 33.9% efficiency for the perovskite–Si tandem
solar cell (TSC).
[8]
As perceived by the International Technology
Roadmap, Si tandem efficiency will reach 28% by 2032 and a
market share of 5% of the global PV market share to cope with
the production of 35 GW per year.
S. A. U. Hasan, M. A. Zahid, J. Yi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Korea
E-mail: [email protected]
S. Park, J. Yi
Research Institute for Clean Energy
College of Information and Communication Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon 16419, Korea
E-mail: [email protected]
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202300967.
DOI: 10.1002/solr.202300967
As the balance of system cost of photovoltaic (PV) installations governs the
competitiveness of PV device market, next-generation solar cells desire sub-
stantially enhanced power conversion efficiencies (PCEs). The single-junction
perovskite and Si solar cells have demonstrated PCEs beyond 26% and 25%,
respectively. The tandem configuration has crossed the threshold posed by the
shockley queisser limit by demonstrating the 33.9% PCE. However, the unre-
solved issues in the perovskite community from a stability perspective pose
challenges for realizing highly efficient and stable perovskite–Si tandem solar
cells (TSCs). This review highlights the current status of perovskite–Si TSC from a
stability perspective besides elucidating the degradation mechanisms at the
perovskite–Si at the cell and module level. A highly efficient perovskite–Si TSC
needs optimization keeping view the specific requirements for tandem config-
uration like strain, current matching, and bandgap optimization between the top
perovskite and bottom Si subcell. Various stressors affecting the efficiency of the
perovskite–Si module, namely, reverse bias and hot spot formation, and
delamination, highlight valuable insight to develop future strategies for the
perovskite–Si TSC. Stability regimes for the single-junction perovskite solar cell
can provide the essential stepping stone but, modified stability regimes are
inevitable.
REVIEW
www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (1 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
Tandem Solar Cell: A Review
Syed Azkar Ul Hasan, Muhammad Aleem Zahid, Sangheon Park,* and Junsin Yi*
1. Introduction
From 2011 to 2023, commercial photovoltaic (PV) systems
enhanced the global power output from 13 to 183 GW, following
the 30% average annual global growth.
[1]
Another promising fac-
tor contributing to unprecedented commercial viability is the
40% reduced costs and twice the production capacity, known
as the learning rate of PV modules. Within the next decade,
annual production growth will be up to 1.5–3 TW per year
and afterward, following plateau at multi-
terawatt per year production in 2050.
This continuous performance enhance-
ment, along with the reduced cost-per-watt
peak, is not history. Instead, this tendency
will still be relevant in the years to come.
Si is a proven market leader in the PV
community, capturing 92% of the global
production in 2020. To date, the power
conversion efficiency (PCE) of the Si in
the case of monofacial and bifacial
modules is 22.8% and 24%, respectively.
Incorporating passivating contact like
tunnel oxide passivating contact (TOPCon)
and interdigitated back contacts architec-
ture made higher efficiency possible
for single-junction Si solar cells.
[2–4]
As
per the prediction of the International
Technology Roadmap of Photovoltaics,
the growth of Si module efficiency will slow
down, with the anticipated monofacial
module efficiency of 24% only by 2030.
[?]
As the balance of system (BOS) cost
has a substantial fraction of the total cost
of PV installations, PCE enhancement
becomes prominent for the economics of
commercial PV systems. Previously, the module cost was 31%
of the entire cost of the PV system, and 40% composed of
BOS components that include land, wiring, structures, and
mounting, and the cost varies with scale.
[5]
Therefore, higher
module efficiency implies enhanced energy yield per unit area,
minimizing the size of the module and reducing BOS costs. This
performance enhancement substantially affects the levelized cost
of electricity (LCOE) for determining market competitiveness.
Due to the competitive advantages of perovskites and market-
driven Si solar cells, the industry has perceived the perovskite–Si
tandem as the market leader in the coming years. Si-based pilot
industry lines have the potential for collaboration with perov-
skites solar cell and perceived as perfect paraphernalia for
perovskites-Si tandem solar cells to deal with the challenges
set by the PV community. The efficiency and stability perspective
of PV devices is paramount to converting challenging milestones
into future opportunities. Tandem configuration based solar cells
inherent 40% theoretical efficiencies that exceed the theoretical
efficiencies of a single-junction Si solar cell.
[6,7]
LONGi has
achieved a record 33.9% efficiency for the perovskite–Si tandem
solar cell (TSC).
[8]
As perceived by the International Technology
Roadmap, Si tandem efficiency will reach 28% by 2032 and a
market share of 5% of the global PV market share to cope with
the production of 35 GW per year.
S. A. U. Hasan, M. A. Zahid, J. Yi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Korea
E-mail: [email protected]
S. Park, J. Yi
Research Institute for Clean Energy
College of Information and Communication Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
Suwon 16419, Korea
E-mail: [email protected]
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202300967.
DOI: 10.1002/solr.202300967
As the balance of system cost of photovoltaic (PV) installations governs the
competitiveness of PV device market, next-generation solar cells desire sub-
stantially enhanced power conversion efficiencies (PCEs). The single-junction
perovskite and Si solar cells have demonstrated PCEs beyond 26% and 25%,
respectively. The tandem configuration has crossed the threshold posed by the
shockley queisser limit by demonstrating the 33.9% PCE. However, the unre-
solved issues in the perovskite community from a stability perspective pose
challenges for realizing highly efficient and stable perovskite–Si tandem solar
cells (TSCs). This review highlights the current status of perovskite–Si TSC from a
stability perspective besides elucidating the degradation mechanisms at the
perovskite–Si at the cell and module level. A highly efficient perovskite–Si TSC
needs optimization keeping view the specific requirements for tandem config-
uration like strain, current matching, and bandgap optimization between the top
perovskite and bottom Si subcell. Various stressors affecting the efficiency of the
perovskite–Si module, namely, reverse bias and hot spot formation, and
delamination, highlight valuable insight to develop future strategies for the
perovskite–Si TSC. Stability regimes for the single-junction perovskite solar cell
can provide the essential stepping stone but, modified stability regimes are
inevitable.
REVIEW
www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (1 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
Highly efficient tandem structures include p–i–n and n–i–p
configurations based on the charged transport material; either
hole or electron is exposed to sunlightfirst, as illustrated in
Figure 1a,b. The transmission material with low optical absorp-
tion prefers the illumination side of the PV device for reduced
parasitic absorption loss.
[9,10]
Perovskite’s unprecedented suc-
cess has achieved PCE up to 25.7% with less than a decade.
[11]
Perovskite–Si TSC has demonstrated their competitive advantage
in academia and industry for as small an area as<1cm
2
and as
large as 10 cm
2
.
[4,12]
The competitive advantage of perovskite–Si
TSCs is depicted inFigure 2a by comparing record PCE achieved
by Si and perovskite single-junction solar cells. Figure 2b depicts
the yearly stability progression for the perovskite–Si TSCs.
Within less than a decade, perovskite–Si TSC has demonstrated
its potential by securing 31.3% and 29.6% PCE for 4-terminal
(4T) and 2-terminal (2T) TSC PCE, respectively.
[13]
It is worth
mentioning that record single-junction silicon solar cell (SSC)
PCE has not taken any further steps from 26.7% since 2017.
This unprecedented success has highlighted the substantial
evidence for commercializing perovskite/Si TSCs. Oxford PV
realized the perovskite–Si TSC device has an area of 1 and
174 cm
2
with certified PCE 29.52% and 26.8%, respectively.
Furthermore, Oxford PV has announced the launch of 60-cell
modules with a maximum power of 435 W at the 2022 tandem
workshop.
Despite all the PCE enhancements for single-junction and tan-
dem configurations, the stability perspective of the PV device is
the critical bottleneck. It determines the commercial viability of
the PV market. The challenges faced by perovskite–Si TSCs are
not only due to the fundamental challenges of perovskite solar
cell (PSC) but also include the effect of charge-transport layers
(CTLs) and encapsulation methods as unique aspects of tandem
configuration. The need for established stability test protocols for
tandem architecture makes the direct interpretation of the
reported stability results quite cumbersome, which is an obstacle
in elucidating the degradation mechanism. Some comprehen-
sive reviews about the stability perspective of single-junction
PSCs provide valuable insight. The stability aspects of
perovskite–Si TSC s require further insight as there are conflict-
ing scenarios in the real world, and better comprehension of the
degradation mechanism can promote the commercial viability of
perovskite–Si TSC in the future.
The fundamental difference between perovskites and conven-
tional semiconductors, namely, Si, CdTe, and III–V semiconduc-
tors, is the behavior of their valance band maximum (VBM) and
conduction band minimum (CBM). The VBM and CBM in case
of typical semiconductor are composed of bonding and antibond-
ing orbitals, respectively.
[14]
The bond breakage creates the dan-
gling bonds that occupy the space of their original bonds, thereby
generating of deep defects within the bandgap.
[15]
On the con-
trary, perovskites VBM and CBM emerge from the antibonding
orbitals that generate the states away from the bandgap, either
shallow or states within the valence band. This eventually leads
to the competitive advantage of high performance for perovskites
even with the defect densities 10
6
times greater than that of
single-crystal Si solar cells.
[15]
The high defect density poses a
disadvantage in terms of reducing the energy required for
particle migration through thefilm. This, in turn, leads to faster
degradation of the absorber, as number of defects increases over
time as depicted inFigure 3a,b. Perovskite–Si TSCs for 2T and
4T solar cell architecture are shown in Figure 3c,d
Chin et al. developed a tandem device architecture by deposit-
ing the perovskite layer conformally on an industrial standard Si
bottom cell with micrometric surface texture. This developed
device achieved PCE 31.5% for an area of 1.17 cm
2
by regulating
the perovskite crystallization process and mitigating the interface
of top perovskite with the electron-selective C
60contact. The
minimized voltage losses for perovskite/hole-transport layer
(HTL) were acquired by manipulating the [4-(3,6-dimethyl-9H-
carbazol-9-yl)butyl]phosphonic acid (Me-4PACz), and the use
of FbPAc during the perovskite deposition led to reduced perov-
skite/C60electron-transport layer (ETL) interface, the realization
of highly desired large perovskite microstructure domains.
[16]
Mariotti et al. achieved 32.5% PCE for the 2T monolithic
Figure 1.Schematic of perovskite–Si tandem configurations: a) n–i–p perovskite–Si TSC architecture and b) p–i–n perovskite–Si TSC architecture.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (2 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
configurations based on the charged transport material; either
hole or electron is exposed to sunlightfirst, as illustrated in
Figure 1a,b. The transmission material with low optical absorp-
tion prefers the illumination side of the PV device for reduced
parasitic absorption loss.
[9,10]
Perovskite’s unprecedented suc-
cess has achieved PCE up to 25.7% with less than a decade.
[11]
Perovskite–Si TSC has demonstrated their competitive advantage
in academia and industry for as small an area as<1cm
2
and as
large as 10 cm
2
.
[4,12]
The competitive advantage of perovskite–Si
TSCs is depicted inFigure 2a by comparing record PCE achieved
by Si and perovskite single-junction solar cells. Figure 2b depicts
the yearly stability progression for the perovskite–Si TSCs.
Within less than a decade, perovskite–Si TSC has demonstrated
its potential by securing 31.3% and 29.6% PCE for 4-terminal
(4T) and 2-terminal (2T) TSC PCE, respectively.
[13]
It is worth
mentioning that record single-junction silicon solar cell (SSC)
PCE has not taken any further steps from 26.7% since 2017.
This unprecedented success has highlighted the substantial
evidence for commercializing perovskite/Si TSCs. Oxford PV
realized the perovskite–Si TSC device has an area of 1 and
174 cm
2
with certified PCE 29.52% and 26.8%, respectively.
Furthermore, Oxford PV has announced the launch of 60-cell
modules with a maximum power of 435 W at the 2022 tandem
workshop.
Despite all the PCE enhancements for single-junction and tan-
dem configurations, the stability perspective of the PV device is
the critical bottleneck. It determines the commercial viability of
the PV market. The challenges faced by perovskite–Si TSCs are
not only due to the fundamental challenges of perovskite solar
cell (PSC) but also include the effect of charge-transport layers
(CTLs) and encapsulation methods as unique aspects of tandem
configuration. The need for established stability test protocols for
tandem architecture makes the direct interpretation of the
reported stability results quite cumbersome, which is an obstacle
in elucidating the degradation mechanism. Some comprehen-
sive reviews about the stability perspective of single-junction
PSCs provide valuable insight. The stability aspects of
perovskite–Si TSC s require further insight as there are conflict-
ing scenarios in the real world, and better comprehension of the
degradation mechanism can promote the commercial viability of
perovskite–Si TSC in the future.
The fundamental difference between perovskites and conven-
tional semiconductors, namely, Si, CdTe, and III–V semiconduc-
tors, is the behavior of their valance band maximum (VBM) and
conduction band minimum (CBM). The VBM and CBM in case
of typical semiconductor are composed of bonding and antibond-
ing orbitals, respectively.
[14]
The bond breakage creates the dan-
gling bonds that occupy the space of their original bonds, thereby
generating of deep defects within the bandgap.
[15]
On the con-
trary, perovskites VBM and CBM emerge from the antibonding
orbitals that generate the states away from the bandgap, either
shallow or states within the valence band. This eventually leads
to the competitive advantage of high performance for perovskites
even with the defect densities 10
6
times greater than that of
single-crystal Si solar cells.
[15]
The high defect density poses a
disadvantage in terms of reducing the energy required for
particle migration through thefilm. This, in turn, leads to faster
degradation of the absorber, as number of defects increases over
time as depicted inFigure 3a,b. Perovskite–Si TSCs for 2T and
4T solar cell architecture are shown in Figure 3c,d
Chin et al. developed a tandem device architecture by deposit-
ing the perovskite layer conformally on an industrial standard Si
bottom cell with micrometric surface texture. This developed
device achieved PCE 31.5% for an area of 1.17 cm
2
by regulating
the perovskite crystallization process and mitigating the interface
of top perovskite with the electron-selective C
60contact. The
minimized voltage losses for perovskite/hole-transport layer
(HTL) were acquired by manipulating the [4-(3,6-dimethyl-9H-
carbazol-9-yl)butyl]phosphonic acid (Me-4PACz), and the use
of FbPAc during the perovskite deposition led to reduced perov-
skite/C60electron-transport layer (ETL) interface, the realization
of highly desired large perovskite microstructure domains.
[16]
Mariotti et al. achieved 32.5% PCE for the 2T monolithic
Figure 1.Schematic of perovskite–Si tandem configurations: a) n–i–p perovskite–Si TSC architecture and b) p–i–n perovskite–Si TSC architecture.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (2 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
perovskite–Si TSC with minimized recombination losses. This
device exhibited enhanced stability by complementing triple-
halide perovskite with a 1.68 eV bandgap with a modified inter-
face using piperazinium iodide. The rationale behind the
reduced recombination is optimized band alignment for efficient
charge extraction. The developed devices demonstratedVocup to
2.00 and 1.28 V for tandem device architecture and p–i–n single-
junction counterpart, respectively.
[17]
This perspective highlights the stability perspective by review-
ing the results of 2T and 4T perovskite/Si tandem configurations.
Besides the challenges the single PSCs face, additional vital stres-
sors pose further challenges for the perovskite/Si tandem config-
uration. This review brings forth the most imminent challenges
for the perovskite/Si tandem architecture like the effect of strain,
ion migration, phase stability for the perovskite materials, detri-
mental scenarios due to current mismatching, pros and cons of
CTLs, electrode design, and instabilities about perovskite top cell
and Si bottom cell. This review further highlights the instabilities
at the module level for perovskite–Si, including potential-
induced degradation (PID), partial shading stress, and delamina-
tion. We also discuss the stability impact while considering the
economic aspects of perovskite–Si solar cells. Ultimately, we
outline the prospect for the perovskite–Si TSC to achieve
higher milestones for stability that can enhance commercial
compatibility.
2. Stability Performance Protocols
It is a prerequisite for any PV technology to meet the threshold
set by the industry in the form of International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC61215) specifications. These regimes consist of
interconnected stressors that expedite the aging of PV modules
when subjected to various stressors. The market-driven Si mod-
ules have already passed this threshold withflying colors and
even the standard achieved by Si PVs by a factor of 2 or more.
An 80% performance retention following the linear time-series
degradation for 25 years is a milestone regarding the stability per-
spective to sustain commercial viability. IEC61215 standards are
the bare minimum industry standard for perovskite–Si TSC. Ion
migration inside the perovskite can result in reversible and irre-
versible changes in the achieved power output. This particular
Figure 2.a) Progress in the PCE of 4T and 2T perovskite–Si licon TSCs in comparison to the highest recorded PCE of individual single-junction SSCs and
PSCs. b) Progress in the durability of perovskite–Si licon TSCs, measured by posttest PCE after over 100 h. Light stability involved testing under normal
lighting, without high temperatures. c) Stability of PSCs for TSCs and 2T perovskite–Si TSCs regarding the illumination condition presented as the
posttest PCE after a broad range of stability tests. d) Stability of PSCs in TSCs and 2T perovskite–Si TSCs, shown by posttest PCE following diverse
stability tests under varying temperature and humidity conditions. Reproduced with permission.
[19]
Copyright 2023, Springer Nature Limited.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (3 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
device exhibited enhanced stability by complementing triple-
halide perovskite with a 1.68 eV bandgap with a modified inter-
face using piperazinium iodide. The rationale behind the
reduced recombination is optimized band alignment for efficient
charge extraction. The developed devices demonstratedVocup to
2.00 and 1.28 V for tandem device architecture and p–i–n single-
junction counterpart, respectively.
[17]
This perspective highlights the stability perspective by review-
ing the results of 2T and 4T perovskite/Si tandem configurations.
Besides the challenges the single PSCs face, additional vital stres-
sors pose further challenges for the perovskite/Si tandem config-
uration. This review brings forth the most imminent challenges
for the perovskite/Si tandem architecture like the effect of strain,
ion migration, phase stability for the perovskite materials, detri-
mental scenarios due to current mismatching, pros and cons of
CTLs, electrode design, and instabilities about perovskite top cell
and Si bottom cell. This review further highlights the instabilities
at the module level for perovskite–Si, including potential-
induced degradation (PID), partial shading stress, and delamina-
tion. We also discuss the stability impact while considering the
economic aspects of perovskite–Si solar cells. Ultimately, we
outline the prospect for the perovskite–Si TSC to achieve
higher milestones for stability that can enhance commercial
compatibility.
2. Stability Performance Protocols
It is a prerequisite for any PV technology to meet the threshold
set by the industry in the form of International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC61215) specifications. These regimes consist of
interconnected stressors that expedite the aging of PV modules
when subjected to various stressors. The market-driven Si mod-
ules have already passed this threshold withflying colors and
even the standard achieved by Si PVs by a factor of 2 or more.
An 80% performance retention following the linear time-series
degradation for 25 years is a milestone regarding the stability per-
spective to sustain commercial viability. IEC61215 standards are
the bare minimum industry standard for perovskite–Si TSC. Ion
migration inside the perovskite can result in reversible and irre-
versible changes in the achieved power output. This particular
Figure 2.a) Progress in the PCE of 4T and 2T perovskite–Si licon TSCs in comparison to the highest recorded PCE of individual single-junction SSCs and
PSCs. b) Progress in the durability of perovskite–Si licon TSCs, measured by posttest PCE after over 100 h. Light stability involved testing under normal
lighting, without high temperatures. c) Stability of PSCs for TSCs and 2T perovskite–Si TSCs regarding the illumination condition presented as the
posttest PCE after a broad range of stability tests. d) Stability of PSCs in TSCs and 2T perovskite–Si TSCs, shown by posttest PCE following diverse
stability tests under varying temperature and humidity conditions. Reproduced with permission.
[19]
Copyright 2023, Springer Nature Limited.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (3 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
behavior poses challenges for assessment from conventional IEC
standards, and a similar scenario came across for the stability of
organic PV s in the International Summit of Organic Stability
(ISOS). The consensus statement of ISOS declares the introduc-
tion of unique tests relevant to perovskite–Si TSC. The updated
IEC standards anticipate the incorporation of ISOS test protocols
to test the commercial viability of perovskite–Si tandem config-
urations. However, the perovskite community involves different
laboratory equipment and environments, and there is wide-
spread variation in the stability of developed perovskitefilms.
This scenario makes the situation complicated for comparing
the available stability records and the comprehension of degra-
dation involved for better strategies to deal with the stability mile-
stones for perovskite–Si tandem configurations. Therefore, there
is a strong desire to share the stability results by following third-
party regimes that will help expedite the progress of perovskite–
Si TSCs from stability perspectives. Figure 2a depicts the
degradation mechanisms for the perovskite–Si tandem configu-
ration based on the material choices, selection of processing
techniques, and device architecture for the top PSC.
2.1. Accelerated Tests
Following the IEC or IEC-like regimes, very few stability analyses
exist for the tandem-configuration solar cells. The rationale asso-
ciated with this scenario is that stability tests represent the
characteristics of the single-joint solar cell. The subcells paired
in tandem architecture are quite different, as their transient
behavior and stability specific to the tandem configuration did
not capture the case of single-junction solar cells.
[18]
Oxford
PV has reported thermal stability data with neither independent
verification nor peer-reviewed publications.
[19]
In the following
section, we intend to elucidate the scenario relevant to the
perovskite–Si tandem aspects.
2.2. Light-Soaking Tests
Light soaking for tandem stability emerged in 2018 for 2T perov-
skite/Si TSC over a fully textured Si heterojunction (HJT) solar
bottom cell having a p–i–n architecture.
[20]
Followed by 61 h in an
ambient environment under 0.7 suns at maximum power point
(MPP), the 24% PCE unencapsulated perovskite/Si TSC sus-
tained 90% of its pristine performance. A similar encapsulation
device retained 90% performance for up to 270 h. Similarly, TSC
with 29% PCE emerged in 2020, and the salient feature of this
highly efficient solar cell was the incorporation of a self-
assembled monolayer with a methyl group substitution Me-4PACz
as a HTL.
[21]
The developed device exhibited enhanced light-soaking
stability, and its unencapsulatedcounterpart maintained its 95%
performance, followed by 300 h of exposure to 1 Sun at 25 °C with
30–40% RH. This enhanced stability was even one order magnitude
lower than the IEC standard light-soaking regime, and there was no
Figure 3.a) Perovskite semiconductor crystal structure (left) and its band structure (right). b) Traditional III–V semiconductor crystal structure (left) and
its band structure (right). c) Schematic of 4T perovskite–Si TSC architecture depicting theflexibility of design with independent subcells. d) Illustration for
the 2T perovskite–Si TSC depicting that current matching between the subcells is required. Reproduced with permission.
[15]
Copyright 2023, Springer
Nature Limited.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (4 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
standards, and a similar scenario came across for the stability of
organic PV s in the International Summit of Organic Stability
(ISOS). The consensus statement of ISOS declares the introduc-
tion of unique tests relevant to perovskite–Si TSC. The updated
IEC standards anticipate the incorporation of ISOS test protocols
to test the commercial viability of perovskite–Si tandem config-
urations. However, the perovskite community involves different
laboratory equipment and environments, and there is wide-
spread variation in the stability of developed perovskitefilms.
This scenario makes the situation complicated for comparing
the available stability records and the comprehension of degra-
dation involved for better strategies to deal with the stability mile-
stones for perovskite–Si tandem configurations. Therefore, there
is a strong desire to share the stability results by following third-
party regimes that will help expedite the progress of perovskite–
Si TSCs from stability perspectives. Figure 2a depicts the
degradation mechanisms for the perovskite–Si tandem configu-
ration based on the material choices, selection of processing
techniques, and device architecture for the top PSC.
2.1. Accelerated Tests
Following the IEC or IEC-like regimes, very few stability analyses
exist for the tandem-configuration solar cells. The rationale asso-
ciated with this scenario is that stability tests represent the
characteristics of the single-joint solar cell. The subcells paired
in tandem architecture are quite different, as their transient
behavior and stability specific to the tandem configuration did
not capture the case of single-junction solar cells.
[18]
Oxford
PV has reported thermal stability data with neither independent
verification nor peer-reviewed publications.
[19]
In the following
section, we intend to elucidate the scenario relevant to the
perovskite–Si tandem aspects.
2.2. Light-Soaking Tests
Light soaking for tandem stability emerged in 2018 for 2T perov-
skite/Si TSC over a fully textured Si heterojunction (HJT) solar
bottom cell having a p–i–n architecture.
[20]
Followed by 61 h in an
ambient environment under 0.7 suns at maximum power point
(MPP), the 24% PCE unencapsulated perovskite/Si TSC sus-
tained 90% of its pristine performance. A similar encapsulation
device retained 90% performance for up to 270 h. Similarly, TSC
with 29% PCE emerged in 2020, and the salient feature of this
highly efficient solar cell was the incorporation of a self-
assembled monolayer with a methyl group substitution Me-4PACz
as a HTL.
[21]
The developed device exhibited enhanced light-soaking
stability, and its unencapsulatedcounterpart maintained its 95%
performance, followed by 300 h of exposure to 1 Sun at 25 °C with
30–40% RH. This enhanced stability was even one order magnitude
lower than the IEC standard light-soaking regime, and there was no
Figure 3.a) Perovskite semiconductor crystal structure (left) and its band structure (right). b) Traditional III–V semiconductor crystal structure (left) and
its band structure (right). c) Schematic of 4T perovskite–Si TSC architecture depicting theflexibility of design with independent subcells. d) Illustration for
the 2T perovskite–Si TSC depicting that current matching between the subcells is required. Reproduced with permission.
[15]
Copyright 2023, Springer
Nature Limited.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (4 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
mention of a test performed at 60 °C. The efficient CTL substan-
tially contributes toward higher efficiency. However, in the case
of perovskite–Si TSC, the HJT bottom subcell makes it impossible
to use high-temperature CTL like TiO
2and NiO
x.
[22,23]
This
scenario is a severe bottleneck toward realizing a highly efficient
perovskite–Si solar cell. Fortunately, the emergence of low-
temperature sputtered NiOxresolves this dilemma to a great
extent as the devices having NiO
xas CTL start exhibiting
enhanced stability. A 2T perovskite–Si TSC with NiOx-
incorporated CTL demonstrated negligible degradation followed
by operation of 400 h at MPP at 40 °C, highlighting the stable
response of the developed photovoltaic device.
[24,25]
Moreover,
poly-Si-based TOPCon cells can withstand process temperatures
beyond 500 °C; therefore, efficient CTL can be incorporated into
the device architecture. An interconnect device with TiO
xas ETL
demonstrated 24% device efficiency,
[26]
and this device showed its
potential to sustain 80% performance followed by four-stage
aging process with cumulative 2500 h of operation in an N2envi-
ronment at 25 °C, MPP tracking up to 21 h, dark storage for
1224 h, and light–dark cycle followed by illumination of 800 h.
The performance loss of the device due to light, oxygen, and
light-enhanced ion migration was ultimately recovered in the
dark. Light can play a substantial role in perovskite–Si TSC sta-
bility, as depicted in Figure 2c by comparing the stability under
dark and light with half- and full-filled symbols. A 2T perovskite–
Si TSC with 25.9% PCE retained its 94.8% PCE when stored
under dark, 10 488 h in an inert N
2environment at 25 °C.
[27]
However, under light, the same device degraded within 100 h,
losing its MPP. The incorporation of C
60as a promising ETL
has the potential to mitigate device degradation under light
through the optimization of effective interface management.
2.3. Damp-Heat Tests
Damp-heat tests were performed for single-junction solar cells
with p–i–n and n–i–p architecture.
[28,29]
However, similar reports
for the tandem solar configuration are rare. A 28.2% efficient
perovskite/Si TSC sustained its performance up to 87%, followed
by a 500 h damp-heat test.
[30]
The rationale associated with this
high performance was incorporating carbazole molecules as a
perovskite additive, enhancing the perovskite bulk quality and
passivating the deep charge traps. Figure 2d illustrates the per-
formance of a single-junction PSC when subjected to a damp-
heat test. Followed by exposure to 1 sun illumination held at
MPP for 250 h, the tandem device experiences limited degrada-
tion. Incorporation of 1 nm thick magnesiumfluoride (MgFx)
layer between the perovskite and ETL can lead to 29.3% efficient
2T perovskite/Si TSC that sustained 95% PCE when subjected to
1000 h damp-heat exposure.
[31]
This highly stable performance
can be ascribed to the modification of energy alignment and min-
imized metal ion diffusivity at the ETL–perovskite interface
because of MgFx. A damp-heat test can degrade the intrinsic cell
stability and pose challenges for the encapsulation technique.
[32]
2.4. Field Tests
The basic purpose of accelerated test is mimic years of real-world
operation and the experience from Si industry demonstrated that
such tests are often not sufficient to reproduce long-term real-
world exposure. Therefore, the importance of actualfield test
becomes prominent in this scenario.
As a matter of fact, there is a great variation in the solar
spectrum throughout the day and across the year and also it dif-
fers from location to location. This scenario gives rise to the
current mismatch between the top PSC and the bottom SSC
in the 2T tandem configuration, thereby compromising the
performance of the solar cell. It has been revealed that followed
by exposure of 7 days a 25% efficient 2T bifacial perovskite
experienced current mismatch when subjected to hot and dry
weather in Saudi Arabia with inherent solar energy equivalent
to 2500 kWh m
fi2
per year. In case of 23% efficient 2T
perovskite–Si solar TSC, theVocof the cell was maintained
for a period greater than 6 months but thefill factor was
decreased from 0.8 to 0.5. The degradation for thefill
factor can be traced back through ion migration in the
perovskite and was mainly reversible overnight without showing
any trace of hysteresis. The formation of AgI due to corrosion of
metal contact over a period of time is another factor that eventu-
ally leads to performance degradation. Therefore, designing
stable electrodes for the perovskite–Si TSC is of paramount
importance. A 28.2% efficient device involving the use of carba-
zole molecule as the perovskite precursor sustained 93% of its
efficiency upon being subjected to an outdoor test for 40 d.
The stability testing pertaining to the perovskite–Si TSC is still
in the infancy stage. The lifetime of perovskite–Si TSC is
far behind than that of the SSC. Most of the studies revolve
around single or double stressors and there is dire need of
systematic understanding as well as adopting standardized
methodology.
3. Failure Mechanism for Degradation
at Cell Level
The origin of perovskite material stems from soft crystal of
mobile ionic defect in the form of vacancies and interstitials.
The low activation energy is merely in the 0.1–0.3 eV for I
fi
migration that leads to ionic conductivity. The decomposition
of perovskite can be stimulated due to imbalance in stoichiomet-
ric variations as regards the ionic migration at the molecular
level. The reduction of Pb
2þ
ions into Pb
0
metallic defects
emerges because of migration of organic and halide ions.
There is a tendency for mobile ions to penetrate the CTL and
electrode, thereby resulting in nonradiative in PSC besides
degrading the charge transport and extraction properties of
electrodes in the device. The HTL in the form of poly[bis(4-
phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA) role for TSC was
degraded due to the migration of halide ions from perovskite
to HTL, thereby minimizing the p-type doping and hole-
transport capabilities. Ion migration also generates phase
segregation.Figure 4a highlights the conversion duration and
temperature role for the realization of thin perovskitefilm.
The light absorption and scanning electron microscope (SEM)
top view are shown in Figure 4b,c. Figure 4d depicts the
X-ray diffraction (XRD) peak intensity for PbO, PbI
2, and
CH3NH3PbI3.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (5 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
tially contributes toward higher efficiency. However, in the case
of perovskite–Si TSC, the HJT bottom subcell makes it impossible
to use high-temperature CTL like TiO
2and NiO
x.
[22,23]
This
scenario is a severe bottleneck toward realizing a highly efficient
perovskite–Si solar cell. Fortunately, the emergence of low-
temperature sputtered NiOxresolves this dilemma to a great
extent as the devices having NiO
xas CTL start exhibiting
enhanced stability. A 2T perovskite–Si TSC with NiOx-
incorporated CTL demonstrated negligible degradation followed
by operation of 400 h at MPP at 40 °C, highlighting the stable
response of the developed photovoltaic device.
[24,25]
Moreover,
poly-Si-based TOPCon cells can withstand process temperatures
beyond 500 °C; therefore, efficient CTL can be incorporated into
the device architecture. An interconnect device with TiO
xas ETL
demonstrated 24% device efficiency,
[26]
and this device showed its
potential to sustain 80% performance followed by four-stage
aging process with cumulative 2500 h of operation in an N2envi-
ronment at 25 °C, MPP tracking up to 21 h, dark storage for
1224 h, and light–dark cycle followed by illumination of 800 h.
The performance loss of the device due to light, oxygen, and
light-enhanced ion migration was ultimately recovered in the
dark. Light can play a substantial role in perovskite–Si TSC sta-
bility, as depicted in Figure 2c by comparing the stability under
dark and light with half- and full-filled symbols. A 2T perovskite–
Si TSC with 25.9% PCE retained its 94.8% PCE when stored
under dark, 10 488 h in an inert N
2environment at 25 °C.
[27]
However, under light, the same device degraded within 100 h,
losing its MPP. The incorporation of C
60as a promising ETL
has the potential to mitigate device degradation under light
through the optimization of effective interface management.
2.3. Damp-Heat Tests
Damp-heat tests were performed for single-junction solar cells
with p–i–n and n–i–p architecture.
[28,29]
However, similar reports
for the tandem solar configuration are rare. A 28.2% efficient
perovskite/Si TSC sustained its performance up to 87%, followed
by a 500 h damp-heat test.
[30]
The rationale associated with this
high performance was incorporating carbazole molecules as a
perovskite additive, enhancing the perovskite bulk quality and
passivating the deep charge traps. Figure 2d illustrates the per-
formance of a single-junction PSC when subjected to a damp-
heat test. Followed by exposure to 1 sun illumination held at
MPP for 250 h, the tandem device experiences limited degrada-
tion. Incorporation of 1 nm thick magnesiumfluoride (MgFx)
layer between the perovskite and ETL can lead to 29.3% efficient
2T perovskite/Si TSC that sustained 95% PCE when subjected to
1000 h damp-heat exposure.
[31]
This highly stable performance
can be ascribed to the modification of energy alignment and min-
imized metal ion diffusivity at the ETL–perovskite interface
because of MgFx. A damp-heat test can degrade the intrinsic cell
stability and pose challenges for the encapsulation technique.
[32]
2.4. Field Tests
The basic purpose of accelerated test is mimic years of real-world
operation and the experience from Si industry demonstrated that
such tests are often not sufficient to reproduce long-term real-
world exposure. Therefore, the importance of actualfield test
becomes prominent in this scenario.
As a matter of fact, there is a great variation in the solar
spectrum throughout the day and across the year and also it dif-
fers from location to location. This scenario gives rise to the
current mismatch between the top PSC and the bottom SSC
in the 2T tandem configuration, thereby compromising the
performance of the solar cell. It has been revealed that followed
by exposure of 7 days a 25% efficient 2T bifacial perovskite
experienced current mismatch when subjected to hot and dry
weather in Saudi Arabia with inherent solar energy equivalent
to 2500 kWh m
fi2
per year. In case of 23% efficient 2T
perovskite–Si solar TSC, theVocof the cell was maintained
for a period greater than 6 months but thefill factor was
decreased from 0.8 to 0.5. The degradation for thefill
factor can be traced back through ion migration in the
perovskite and was mainly reversible overnight without showing
any trace of hysteresis. The formation of AgI due to corrosion of
metal contact over a period of time is another factor that eventu-
ally leads to performance degradation. Therefore, designing
stable electrodes for the perovskite–Si TSC is of paramount
importance. A 28.2% efficient device involving the use of carba-
zole molecule as the perovskite precursor sustained 93% of its
efficiency upon being subjected to an outdoor test for 40 d.
The stability testing pertaining to the perovskite–Si TSC is still
in the infancy stage. The lifetime of perovskite–Si TSC is
far behind than that of the SSC. Most of the studies revolve
around single or double stressors and there is dire need of
systematic understanding as well as adopting standardized
methodology.
3. Failure Mechanism for Degradation
at Cell Level
The origin of perovskite material stems from soft crystal of
mobile ionic defect in the form of vacancies and interstitials.
The low activation energy is merely in the 0.1–0.3 eV for I
fi
migration that leads to ionic conductivity. The decomposition
of perovskite can be stimulated due to imbalance in stoichiomet-
ric variations as regards the ionic migration at the molecular
level. The reduction of Pb
2þ
ions into Pb
0
metallic defects
emerges because of migration of organic and halide ions.
There is a tendency for mobile ions to penetrate the CTL and
electrode, thereby resulting in nonradiative in PSC besides
degrading the charge transport and extraction properties of
electrodes in the device. The HTL in the form of poly[bis(4-
phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA) role for TSC was
degraded due to the migration of halide ions from perovskite
to HTL, thereby minimizing the p-type doping and hole-
transport capabilities. Ion migration also generates phase
segregation.Figure 4a highlights the conversion duration and
temperature role for the realization of thin perovskitefilm.
The light absorption and scanning electron microscope (SEM)
top view are shown in Figure 4b,c. Figure 4d depicts the
X-ray diffraction (XRD) peak intensity for PbO, PbI
2, and
CH3NH3PbI3.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (5 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
3.1. Phase Stability
A wider optical band (1.60–1.75 eV), compared to the optimum
bandgap of the single-junction PSC, is essential for the top PSCs
in tandem configuration to realize the highly efficient solar cell.
This wide bandgap is achieved mainly by incorporating Br ion,
which is prone to phase segregation and eventually leads to a spa-
tially distributed I-rich region and Br-rich one in the device active
layer.
[33,34]
This phase segregation is highly metastable and is
reversible under the dark environment due to entropy favorable
homogenous halide distribution. There is a variety of models that
explain the phenomena of phase segregation,
[35]
namely, the
emergence of an antidriving force inside the energy gap between
the I-rich region and homogenous region,
[36]
charge carrier con-
centration gradients paired with differential halide mobilities,
[37]
cubic versus tetragonal phase stability,
[38]
polaron-induced
lattice,
[39]
strain,
[39]
temperature-dependent miscibility gaps,
[40]
or trapping-induced electricfields.
[?]
Perovskite top cells in tandem configuration suffer phase
segregation, particularly upon exceeding the fraction of Br ion
inside halide in perovskites beyond 40%.
[41]
Halide vacancies
provide diffusion pathways whenxranges from 0.2 to 1
for MAPb(BrxI1αx)3,
[35,42]
xranges from 0.55 to 0.9 in
FAPb(Br
xI
1αx)
3,
[35,43]
andxranges from 0.4 to 1 in
CsPb(BrxI1αx)3.
[36,44]
The pristine perovskitefilm’s photolumi-
nescence (PL) spectrum splits into two peaks depicting the phase
segregation when the Br ratio inside MAPb(BrxI1αx)3exceeds
0.4. The defects inside the grain boundaries and wide-bandgap
matrix surfaces are prone to phase segregation due to low-energy
emitting domains forming.
[43]
Although it reduced radiative effi-
ciency in the mixed-phase, charge funneling and segregation can
increase the PL quantum yield by up to 25%. This phenomenon
aids in realizing thermally stable high-efficiency light-emitting
devices and color conversion heterostructures. The emergence
of new states at the sub-bandgap region due to the phase segre-
gation changes the perovskite energy levels, having the disadvan-
tage of enhanced nonradiative charge recombination rates and
the charge transport around interfaces responsible for charge
transportation. Figure highlights the schematic of emission,
absorption, and recombination processes because of phase
segregation.
A 2T perovskite–Si TSC with n–i–p architecture is reflected
inFigure 5a. The accompanied phase segregation phenomena
is depicted in Figure 5b. Figure 5d (right panel) highlights
the absorption coefficient (α) followed by modifying the
MAPb(Br
xI
1αx)
3and the position of the steep descent reflects
the approximate band edge position. Figure 5d (left panel) shows
steady-state PL spectra MAPb(Br0.4I0.6)3with wide-band perov-
skite recorded for 45 s in 5 s increments under 457 nm light
at 300 K. This change in optical bandgap due to phase segrega-
tion results in current mismatching between the top PSC and
bottom Si cell, which has a highly detrimental effect on the device
stability and exacerbates the efficiency of the Si bottom cell when
the Si bottom cell limits the current.
[45]
At the MPP or short-
circuit condition, the extent of phase segregation mitigates
and exacerbates at an open circuit, implying that internal
and/or internal electricfields play a substantial role in the
reduced charge extraction.
[46]
Although phase segregation has
Figure 4.Properties of thinfilms developed via dry two-stage conversion on aflat surface, varied by conversion duration and temperature images and
analysis offilms on 1.5 cmfl1.5 cm TiO
2/FTO: a) digital camera view, b) light absorption at 550 nm, c) SEM top view, and d) XRD peak intensity for PbO,
PbI2, and CH3NH3PbI3. Reproduced with permission.
[70]
Copyright 2020, Springer Nature Limited.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (6 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
A wider optical band (1.60–1.75 eV), compared to the optimum
bandgap of the single-junction PSC, is essential for the top PSCs
in tandem configuration to realize the highly efficient solar cell.
This wide bandgap is achieved mainly by incorporating Br ion,
which is prone to phase segregation and eventually leads to a spa-
tially distributed I-rich region and Br-rich one in the device active
layer.
[33,34]
This phase segregation is highly metastable and is
reversible under the dark environment due to entropy favorable
homogenous halide distribution. There is a variety of models that
explain the phenomena of phase segregation,
[35]
namely, the
emergence of an antidriving force inside the energy gap between
the I-rich region and homogenous region,
[36]
charge carrier con-
centration gradients paired with differential halide mobilities,
[37]
cubic versus tetragonal phase stability,
[38]
polaron-induced
lattice,
[39]
strain,
[39]
temperature-dependent miscibility gaps,
[40]
or trapping-induced electricfields.
[?]
Perovskite top cells in tandem configuration suffer phase
segregation, particularly upon exceeding the fraction of Br ion
inside halide in perovskites beyond 40%.
[41]
Halide vacancies
provide diffusion pathways whenxranges from 0.2 to 1
for MAPb(BrxI1αx)3,
[35,42]
xranges from 0.55 to 0.9 in
FAPb(Br
xI
1αx)
3,
[35,43]
andxranges from 0.4 to 1 in
CsPb(BrxI1αx)3.
[36,44]
The pristine perovskitefilm’s photolumi-
nescence (PL) spectrum splits into two peaks depicting the phase
segregation when the Br ratio inside MAPb(BrxI1αx)3exceeds
0.4. The defects inside the grain boundaries and wide-bandgap
matrix surfaces are prone to phase segregation due to low-energy
emitting domains forming.
[43]
Although it reduced radiative effi-
ciency in the mixed-phase, charge funneling and segregation can
increase the PL quantum yield by up to 25%. This phenomenon
aids in realizing thermally stable high-efficiency light-emitting
devices and color conversion heterostructures. The emergence
of new states at the sub-bandgap region due to the phase segre-
gation changes the perovskite energy levels, having the disadvan-
tage of enhanced nonradiative charge recombination rates and
the charge transport around interfaces responsible for charge
transportation. Figure highlights the schematic of emission,
absorption, and recombination processes because of phase
segregation.
A 2T perovskite–Si TSC with n–i–p architecture is reflected
inFigure 5a. The accompanied phase segregation phenomena
is depicted in Figure 5b. Figure 5d (right panel) highlights
the absorption coefficient (α) followed by modifying the
MAPb(Br
xI
1αx)
3and the position of the steep descent reflects
the approximate band edge position. Figure 5d (left panel) shows
steady-state PL spectra MAPb(Br0.4I0.6)3with wide-band perov-
skite recorded for 45 s in 5 s increments under 457 nm light
at 300 K. This change in optical bandgap due to phase segrega-
tion results in current mismatching between the top PSC and
bottom Si cell, which has a highly detrimental effect on the device
stability and exacerbates the efficiency of the Si bottom cell when
the Si bottom cell limits the current.
[45]
At the MPP or short-
circuit condition, the extent of phase segregation mitigates
and exacerbates at an open circuit, implying that internal
and/or internal electricfields play a substantial role in the
reduced charge extraction.
[46]
Although phase segregation has
Figure 4.Properties of thinfilms developed via dry two-stage conversion on aflat surface, varied by conversion duration and temperature images and
analysis offilms on 1.5 cmfl1.5 cm TiO
2/FTO: a) digital camera view, b) light absorption at 550 nm, c) SEM top view, and d) XRD peak intensity for PbO,
PbI2, and CH3NH3PbI3. Reproduced with permission.
[70]
Copyright 2020, Springer Nature Limited.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (6 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
well-established evidence, the extent to which it affects is an open
question. Some of the literature argues that phase segregation
tends to change the perovskite lattice and composition because
of the light instability of perovskites.
[45,47]
In contrast, some lit-
erature argues that phase segregation is a short-term and revers-
ible phenomenon and, in the long run, it does not affect the
stability of the PV device. The PSC often suffered less than
18% degradation within 1000 h.
[48,49]
Followed by longer illumination time, PSC sustains at least
20% of their PCE, and this difference points toward phase
segregation as a significant hurdle for the realization of high-
efficiency and stable energy yield perovskite-based TSCs. The
strategies that mitigate the phase segregation include texture
improvements,
[50,51]
perovskite crystal control,
[52]
incorporation
of composition-stoichiometry engineering,
[35,43]
and trap state
passivation.
[53,54]
Interested readers about strategies for suppres-
sion can go through the available comprehensive review, and
here, our focus is phase segregation of perovskite–Si TSCs.
The solubility of chlorine inside CsFA-based wide-bandgap
perovskite can realize a higher resistance for phase segregation.
Replacing iodine with bromine in perovskites shrinks the lattice
constant, and that leads to the twice
[55]
enhancement of the
charge-carrier mobility and photocurrent lifetime for the photo-
voltaic device. Another strategy is that molecules with electron-
poor and electron-rich moieties like phenformin hydrochloride
can simultaneously passivate cationic and anionic defects in
wide-bandgap perovskites to mitigate the phase segregation.
[52]
Modifying the perovskite synthesis route to realize the larger
grains leads to better crystallinity, replacing thermally stable
Cs or FA instead of unstable volatile MA a-site cation.
Fortunately, followed by illumination, halide-ion segregation is
reversible, and the homogeneity of the perovskitefilm recovers
by enhancing the carrier density. Light interaction with perov-
skite for a certain period can regain composition homogeneity
and the way forward for the viability of phase-stable wide-
bandgap perovskites
3.2. Strain
Perovskites with low cohesion energy and extreme mechanical
fragility due to their inherent brittle and salt-like nature are very
sensitive to strain.
[56,57]
Comprehension of associated strain is
essential to achieve highly efficient and stable perovskite-based
devices. Perovskite, when subjected to strain due to a substantial
thermal expansion coefficient mismatch
[58–62]
between the top
PSC and bottom Si solar cell (0.26). Strain affects the structure
of perovskites, exacerbating their optoelectronic properties and
stability. The magnitude of stress for perovskite/Si TSC is much
greater than that of single-junction counterparts for the top and
bottom subcells, which eventually expedites the degradation at
elevated temperatures and in humid environments.
[63]
Apart
from the substrate-related compressive and tensile strain, other
sources of local strain include the nonstoichiometric chemical
Figure 5.a) Structure of a 2T perovskite–Si TSC featuring an n–i–p architecture in the perovskite cell. Illustrates degradation pathways specific to tandem
cells, preconditioned at open circuit in light. b) Illustration of phase segregation mechanism, showing halide ion distribution in MAPb(Br
0.8I
0.2)
3perov-
skite lattice under low (left) and high (right) carrier densities. c) Processes of absorption, emission, and recombination in a halide-segregated perovskite
system. Key terms: a.u., arbitrary unit; CB, conduction band;EF,e, electron quasi-Fermi level;EF,h, hole quasi-Fermi level; VB, valence band. d) Processes of
absorption, emission, and recombination in a halide-segregated perovskite system. Key terms: a.u., arbitrary unit; CB, conduction band;E
F,e, electron
quasi-Fermi level;EF,h, hole quasi-Fermi level; VB, valence band. (d) (left panel) Variation in absorption coefficient (α) for MAPb(BrxI1αx)3films across
different iodide–bromide ratios, indicating band edge position. Inset shows a range of these photovoltaic devices fromx=0tox=1. (right panel) Steady-
state PL spectra of MAPb(Br
0.4I
0.6)
3perovskitefilm, captured in 5 s intervals for 45 s under 457 nm light at 300 K. Inset highlights temperature-dependent
initial PL growth rate around 1.68 eV. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (7 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
question. Some of the literature argues that phase segregation
tends to change the perovskite lattice and composition because
of the light instability of perovskites.
[45,47]
In contrast, some lit-
erature argues that phase segregation is a short-term and revers-
ible phenomenon and, in the long run, it does not affect the
stability of the PV device. The PSC often suffered less than
18% degradation within 1000 h.
[48,49]
Followed by longer illumination time, PSC sustains at least
20% of their PCE, and this difference points toward phase
segregation as a significant hurdle for the realization of high-
efficiency and stable energy yield perovskite-based TSCs. The
strategies that mitigate the phase segregation include texture
improvements,
[50,51]
perovskite crystal control,
[52]
incorporation
of composition-stoichiometry engineering,
[35,43]
and trap state
passivation.
[53,54]
Interested readers about strategies for suppres-
sion can go through the available comprehensive review, and
here, our focus is phase segregation of perovskite–Si TSCs.
The solubility of chlorine inside CsFA-based wide-bandgap
perovskite can realize a higher resistance for phase segregation.
Replacing iodine with bromine in perovskites shrinks the lattice
constant, and that leads to the twice
[55]
enhancement of the
charge-carrier mobility and photocurrent lifetime for the photo-
voltaic device. Another strategy is that molecules with electron-
poor and electron-rich moieties like phenformin hydrochloride
can simultaneously passivate cationic and anionic defects in
wide-bandgap perovskites to mitigate the phase segregation.
[52]
Modifying the perovskite synthesis route to realize the larger
grains leads to better crystallinity, replacing thermally stable
Cs or FA instead of unstable volatile MA a-site cation.
Fortunately, followed by illumination, halide-ion segregation is
reversible, and the homogeneity of the perovskitefilm recovers
by enhancing the carrier density. Light interaction with perov-
skite for a certain period can regain composition homogeneity
and the way forward for the viability of phase-stable wide-
bandgap perovskites
3.2. Strain
Perovskites with low cohesion energy and extreme mechanical
fragility due to their inherent brittle and salt-like nature are very
sensitive to strain.
[56,57]
Comprehension of associated strain is
essential to achieve highly efficient and stable perovskite-based
devices. Perovskite, when subjected to strain due to a substantial
thermal expansion coefficient mismatch
[58–62]
between the top
PSC and bottom Si solar cell (0.26). Strain affects the structure
of perovskites, exacerbating their optoelectronic properties and
stability. The magnitude of stress for perovskite/Si TSC is much
greater than that of single-junction counterparts for the top and
bottom subcells, which eventually expedites the degradation at
elevated temperatures and in humid environments.
[63]
Apart
from the substrate-related compressive and tensile strain, other
sources of local strain include the nonstoichiometric chemical
Figure 5.a) Structure of a 2T perovskite–Si TSC featuring an n–i–p architecture in the perovskite cell. Illustrates degradation pathways specific to tandem
cells, preconditioned at open circuit in light. b) Illustration of phase segregation mechanism, showing halide ion distribution in MAPb(Br
0.8I
0.2)
3perov-
skite lattice under low (left) and high (right) carrier densities. c) Processes of absorption, emission, and recombination in a halide-segregated perovskite
system. Key terms: a.u., arbitrary unit; CB, conduction band;EF,e, electron quasi-Fermi level;EF,h, hole quasi-Fermi level; VB, valence band. d) Processes of
absorption, emission, and recombination in a halide-segregated perovskite system. Key terms: a.u., arbitrary unit; CB, conduction band;E
F,e, electron
quasi-Fermi level;EF,h, hole quasi-Fermi level; VB, valence band. (d) (left panel) Variation in absorption coefficient (α) for MAPb(BrxI1αx)3films across
different iodide–bromide ratios, indicating band edge position. Inset shows a range of these photovoltaic devices fromx=0tox=1. (right panel) Steady-
state PL spectra of MAPb(Br
0.4I
0.6)
3perovskitefilm, captured in 5 s intervals for 45 s under 457 nm light at 300 K. Inset highlights temperature-dependent
initial PL growth rate around 1.68 eV. Copyright 2021, American Chemical Society.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (7 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
composition of perovskites, local distortions, and grain
boundaries.
[64–66]
Strains associated with the perovskitefilms
highly depend on the technique followed for the deposition.
The solution process for the deposition involves a wide range
of variations because of postannealing treatments,
[67]
concentra-
tion gradients in the solution, and the emergence of intermediate
complexes leading to heterogeneous growth of polycrystalline
film having enormous grain boundaries. The strain associated
with perovskitefilm mainly comes from the grain boundaries.
[68]
Evaporation-based deposition techniques result in low stress for
the perovskitefilm because of low-temperature involvement and
the absence of postannealing temperature.
[69]
The texture of the
bottom Si solar cell in the tandem configuration can lead to stress
for the top perovskite subcell.
[70]
Perovskitefilms followed by light
exposure experience excess charge carrier density, leading to non-
uniform lattice strain, mainly due to phase segregation.
[33,43,45,71]
Low thermal conductivities in the range of 0.50 W (mk)
fi1
for the
perovskite exacerbate the scenario.
[72,73]
The thermal conductivi-
ties for commonly used CsPbI
3MAPbI
3inherent thermal con-
ductivities are 0.45 and 0.34 W (mk)
fi1
, respectively. Moreover,
the thermal stresses involved in the perovskite are susceptible
to degradation of device stability.
[72]
Zhang et al. provided insight for controlling the crystallization
and optimizing the interface for depositing 2D/3D perovskite
over the industrial textured crystalline Si solar cell to secure
28.4% for an area of 1.0 cm
2
perovskite–Si TSC. The device
sustained its initial PCE up to 89% followed by 1000 h device
operation. The rationale behind the developed device is hybrid
two-step deposition responsible for robust 2D perovskites having
cross-linkable ligaments underneath 3D perovskite. The salient
feature of the developed device was the preferred crystal growth
for strain-free and uniform upper perovskite that facilitates the
charge-carrier extraction by optimizing the band alignment that
eventually suppresses the defect-induced instability and recom-
bination.Figure 6a demonstrates the two-step mechanism, and
Figure 6b illustrates the schematic of the developed device.
The cross-sectional SEM images are displayed in Figure 6c.
TheJ
sc, PCE, and external quantum efficiency (EQE) are illus-
trated in Figure 6d–f.
[74]
Tensile strain can potentially mitigate the light-induced phase
segregation at the grain boundaries by generating I-rich domains
in the I–Br alloyed perovskitefilms.
[75]
These domains enhance
deformation inside perovskitefilm, followed by exposure to heat
or humidity.
[63]
However, the compressive strain is beneficial
and plays a substantial role in mitigating the phase segregation
because of its higher formation energies for point defects and
enhanced activation energies for ion migration that lead to sup-
pression of halide ion migration and better moisture resistance
and thermal stability.
[73]
The strain engineering of perovskite
films can tremendously improve the stability of perovskite–Si
TSC. Incorporating adenosine triphosphate additive inside
perovskite precursor is a viable strategy for the passivation of
grain boundaries. This phenomenon smartly squeezes the crystal
during annealing and converts the residual tensile stain to com-
pressive. There is evidence of strain relaxation and conversion of
tensile strain into compressive strain when the external compres-
sive is applied, followed by perovskitefilm fabrication.
[76]
A lower
crystallization temperature during annealing can address the
Figure 6.a) Schematic illustrating the two-step method for the formation of 2D/3D perovskites over 2D perovskites. b) Schematic illustration of the TSC
device stack at the buried interface. c) SEM cross-sectional images of perovskites over c-Si textured surface without and with buried interfacial perovskites.
d)J–Vreverse scan of the developed device. e) Statistics of performance parameter distribution for 30 tandem devices without and with buried 2D
perovskite layer. f ) EQE spectra of the tandem devices with a robust 2D perovskite layer. Reproduced with permission.
[74]
Copyright 2023,
Wiley-VCH GmbH.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (8 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
boundaries.
[64–66]
Strains associated with the perovskitefilms
highly depend on the technique followed for the deposition.
The solution process for the deposition involves a wide range
of variations because of postannealing treatments,
[67]
concentra-
tion gradients in the solution, and the emergence of intermediate
complexes leading to heterogeneous growth of polycrystalline
film having enormous grain boundaries. The strain associated
with perovskitefilm mainly comes from the grain boundaries.
[68]
Evaporation-based deposition techniques result in low stress for
the perovskitefilm because of low-temperature involvement and
the absence of postannealing temperature.
[69]
The texture of the
bottom Si solar cell in the tandem configuration can lead to stress
for the top perovskite subcell.
[70]
Perovskitefilms followed by light
exposure experience excess charge carrier density, leading to non-
uniform lattice strain, mainly due to phase segregation.
[33,43,45,71]
Low thermal conductivities in the range of 0.50 W (mk)
fi1
for the
perovskite exacerbate the scenario.
[72,73]
The thermal conductivi-
ties for commonly used CsPbI
3MAPbI
3inherent thermal con-
ductivities are 0.45 and 0.34 W (mk)
fi1
, respectively. Moreover,
the thermal stresses involved in the perovskite are susceptible
to degradation of device stability.
[72]
Zhang et al. provided insight for controlling the crystallization
and optimizing the interface for depositing 2D/3D perovskite
over the industrial textured crystalline Si solar cell to secure
28.4% for an area of 1.0 cm
2
perovskite–Si TSC. The device
sustained its initial PCE up to 89% followed by 1000 h device
operation. The rationale behind the developed device is hybrid
two-step deposition responsible for robust 2D perovskites having
cross-linkable ligaments underneath 3D perovskite. The salient
feature of the developed device was the preferred crystal growth
for strain-free and uniform upper perovskite that facilitates the
charge-carrier extraction by optimizing the band alignment that
eventually suppresses the defect-induced instability and recom-
bination.Figure 6a demonstrates the two-step mechanism, and
Figure 6b illustrates the schematic of the developed device.
The cross-sectional SEM images are displayed in Figure 6c.
TheJ
sc, PCE, and external quantum efficiency (EQE) are illus-
trated in Figure 6d–f.
[74]
Tensile strain can potentially mitigate the light-induced phase
segregation at the grain boundaries by generating I-rich domains
in the I–Br alloyed perovskitefilms.
[75]
These domains enhance
deformation inside perovskitefilm, followed by exposure to heat
or humidity.
[63]
However, the compressive strain is beneficial
and plays a substantial role in mitigating the phase segregation
because of its higher formation energies for point defects and
enhanced activation energies for ion migration that lead to sup-
pression of halide ion migration and better moisture resistance
and thermal stability.
[73]
The strain engineering of perovskite
films can tremendously improve the stability of perovskite–Si
TSC. Incorporating adenosine triphosphate additive inside
perovskite precursor is a viable strategy for the passivation of
grain boundaries. This phenomenon smartly squeezes the crystal
during annealing and converts the residual tensile stain to com-
pressive. There is evidence of strain relaxation and conversion of
tensile strain into compressive strain when the external compres-
sive is applied, followed by perovskitefilm fabrication.
[76]
A lower
crystallization temperature during annealing can address the
Figure 6.a) Schematic illustrating the two-step method for the formation of 2D/3D perovskites over 2D perovskites. b) Schematic illustration of the TSC
device stack at the buried interface. c) SEM cross-sectional images of perovskites over c-Si textured surface without and with buried interfacial perovskites.
d)J–Vreverse scan of the developed device. e) Statistics of performance parameter distribution for 30 tandem devices without and with buried 2D
perovskite layer. f ) EQE spectra of the tandem devices with a robust 2D perovskite layer. Reproduced with permission.
[74]
Copyright 2023,
Wiley-VCH GmbH.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (8 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
significant thermal expansion coefficient mismatch among the
top perovskite layer and the bottom Si solar cell. Interface man-
agement through CTLs with compatible TEC properties ensures
charge extraction properties. The appropriate charge transport
properties of the CTL can substantially enhance charge
extraction.
3.3. Current Matching
The lower current subcell determines the total photocurrent in
2T perovskite/Si tandem configuration
[77]
; therefore, a high yield
of balanced photocurrent is mandatory to realize the maximum
power generation through TSC cells.
[78]
Moreover, the subcell
with the fastest degradation will dictate the decline of perfor-
mance degradation for the TSC. Considering the high repute
of Si solar cells from the stability perspective, comparatively
lower performance from the top perovskite as regards the stabil-
ity aspects is the bottleneck. In addition, the current mismatch
further contributes to further instabilities in the case of 2T perov-
skite/Si TSC. The degraded performance of the bottom Si cell
under the environment of diffused light on cold weather or
cloudy days will enforce the PSC closer toV
ocat a lower photo-
current, thereby enhancing the current density and promoting
the rate of phase segregation.
[79]
As regards thefield operation,
lots of variation exists in the solar spectrum, light intensity, and
seasonal temperature cycles. The bandgap variation with elevated
temperature is quite different, rather opposite. The bandgap of
the perovskite top subcell increases with the temperature
increase, while that of the bottom subcell decreases.
[80,81]
This scenario eventually leads to a current mismatch in the
real-world scenarios, even though the current matching is
controlled during the design and fabrication phases.
Fortunately, the effect is relatively minor compared to the feared
one, and an MPP current for HJT and perovskite performance
sustains at elevated temperatures and illuminated conditions.
[82]
In the low light intensity regimes, there is less degradation for
the PSC than that of HJT. This degradation difference is not cru-
cial as solar cells generate electricity in the 0.5–1.0 sun range.
The competitive advantage of top PSCs is their performance
under various environmental conditions. The impact of solar
spectrum variations, which is both time-dependent and location-
dependent, is an open question for developing its linkage to
performance.
3.4. Electrode Design
The use of Ag and Au as metal electrodes in PSCs poses a poten-
tial risk of instability, as these metals can diffuse into the perov-
skite material, creating shunting paths. This phenomena is
particularly accelerated at higher temperatures. Silver (Ag) tends
to react with the halide in perovskite, forming the silver halides
that generate irreversible degradation for the device.
[83]
The
design criteria for the perovskite–Si TSC is quite different from
the single-junction PSC due to the prerequisite of high transpar-
ency in the former case. The transparent conductive oxide (TCO)
covered with metal mesh has the potential to acquire high trans-
parency for the top PSC in tandem configuration. This combined
effect of TCO and front metal grid results in efficient charge
collection besides reduced metal coverage. Furthermore, TCO
can potentially reduce the detrimental aspects of encapsulation
due to its inherent compatibility with industrially relevant encap-
sulation techniques. Moreover, the sputtered-related damage
during the deposition of TCO can be ruled out or minimized
by incorporating the buffer layers such as SnOxand MoOxdepos-
ited through the atomic layer deposition (ALD) prior to TCO for
both p–i–n and n–i–p TSC, respectively. A dense layer of
SnOxhas the potential to act as a barrier against moisture per-
meation that eventually contributes toward the performance
from a stability point of view. In contrast, MoO
xexhibits high
sensitivity to moisture and, due to low crystallization tempera-
ture, it is prone to delamination and buckling when exposed
to elevated temperature, resulting in a degradation of the device’s
stability.
[84,?]
Another mechanism responsible for degradation is
the transport of volatile iodide from the edges of the PSC. AgI
emerged over the semitransparent top PSC surface but it did
not penetrate through the antireflective coatings or electrode
layers. This evidence highlights the possibility that iodide
emerges from the edges rather than the transportation through
the contact stack. The edge sealing
[85]
of active layers and the
introduction of barrier layers to impede the escape of highly vol-
atile halide species can rule out the problem conveniently.
[86,87]
The design criteria for the perovskite–Si TSC is quite different
from the single-junction PSC due to the prerequisite of high
transparency in the former case. The TCO covered with
metal mesh has the potential to acquire high transparency for
the top PSC in tandem configuration. This combined effect of
TCO and front metal grid results in efficient charge collection
besides reduced metal coverage. Furthermore, TCO can
potentially reduce the detrimental aspects of encapsulation
due to its inherent compatibility with industrially relevant
encapsulation techniques. Moreover, the sputtered-related
damage during the deposition of TCO can be ruled out or mini-
mized by incorporating the buffer layers such as SnOxand MoOx
deposited through the ALD before TCO for both p–i–n and
n–i–p TSC, respectively. A dense layer of SnOxhas the potential
to provide a shield against moisture permeation that eventually
contributes toward the performance from a stability point of
view.
[88]
3.5. Si Surface Texture
The perovskite performance and stability research in 2T TSC pri-
marily focuses on the polished Si wafers having roughness
regimes up to tens of nanometers. For the sake of light trapping
to maximize performance, textured surfaces play a significant
role.
[89]
The currently achieved champion efficiency of up to
31.3% for 2T perovskite/Si substantiates the significance of a tex-
tured silicon substrate.
[90]
This textured surface of the bottom Si
subcell makes the fabrication process for the deposition of the
top PSC comparatively complex. The full coverage of PSCs over
the textured Si surface is rare. The evaporation–evaporation
method, two-step evaporation processes, and solution processes
(spin coating and blade coating) are a few solution process
methods that tend to deposit micrometer-thick perovskite layer
having full coverage over the Si substrate besides accomplishing
the conformal deposition of perovskites over micrometer-sized
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (9 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
top perovskite layer and the bottom Si solar cell. Interface man-
agement through CTLs with compatible TEC properties ensures
charge extraction properties. The appropriate charge transport
properties of the CTL can substantially enhance charge
extraction.
3.3. Current Matching
The lower current subcell determines the total photocurrent in
2T perovskite/Si tandem configuration
[77]
; therefore, a high yield
of balanced photocurrent is mandatory to realize the maximum
power generation through TSC cells.
[78]
Moreover, the subcell
with the fastest degradation will dictate the decline of perfor-
mance degradation for the TSC. Considering the high repute
of Si solar cells from the stability perspective, comparatively
lower performance from the top perovskite as regards the stabil-
ity aspects is the bottleneck. In addition, the current mismatch
further contributes to further instabilities in the case of 2T perov-
skite/Si TSC. The degraded performance of the bottom Si cell
under the environment of diffused light on cold weather or
cloudy days will enforce the PSC closer toV
ocat a lower photo-
current, thereby enhancing the current density and promoting
the rate of phase segregation.
[79]
As regards thefield operation,
lots of variation exists in the solar spectrum, light intensity, and
seasonal temperature cycles. The bandgap variation with elevated
temperature is quite different, rather opposite. The bandgap of
the perovskite top subcell increases with the temperature
increase, while that of the bottom subcell decreases.
[80,81]
This scenario eventually leads to a current mismatch in the
real-world scenarios, even though the current matching is
controlled during the design and fabrication phases.
Fortunately, the effect is relatively minor compared to the feared
one, and an MPP current for HJT and perovskite performance
sustains at elevated temperatures and illuminated conditions.
[82]
In the low light intensity regimes, there is less degradation for
the PSC than that of HJT. This degradation difference is not cru-
cial as solar cells generate electricity in the 0.5–1.0 sun range.
The competitive advantage of top PSCs is their performance
under various environmental conditions. The impact of solar
spectrum variations, which is both time-dependent and location-
dependent, is an open question for developing its linkage to
performance.
3.4. Electrode Design
The use of Ag and Au as metal electrodes in PSCs poses a poten-
tial risk of instability, as these metals can diffuse into the perov-
skite material, creating shunting paths. This phenomena is
particularly accelerated at higher temperatures. Silver (Ag) tends
to react with the halide in perovskite, forming the silver halides
that generate irreversible degradation for the device.
[83]
The
design criteria for the perovskite–Si TSC is quite different from
the single-junction PSC due to the prerequisite of high transpar-
ency in the former case. The transparent conductive oxide (TCO)
covered with metal mesh has the potential to acquire high trans-
parency for the top PSC in tandem configuration. This combined
effect of TCO and front metal grid results in efficient charge
collection besides reduced metal coverage. Furthermore, TCO
can potentially reduce the detrimental aspects of encapsulation
due to its inherent compatibility with industrially relevant encap-
sulation techniques. Moreover, the sputtered-related damage
during the deposition of TCO can be ruled out or minimized
by incorporating the buffer layers such as SnOxand MoOxdepos-
ited through the atomic layer deposition (ALD) prior to TCO for
both p–i–n and n–i–p TSC, respectively. A dense layer of
SnOxhas the potential to act as a barrier against moisture per-
meation that eventually contributes toward the performance
from a stability point of view. In contrast, MoO
xexhibits high
sensitivity to moisture and, due to low crystallization tempera-
ture, it is prone to delamination and buckling when exposed
to elevated temperature, resulting in a degradation of the device’s
stability.
[84,?]
Another mechanism responsible for degradation is
the transport of volatile iodide from the edges of the PSC. AgI
emerged over the semitransparent top PSC surface but it did
not penetrate through the antireflective coatings or electrode
layers. This evidence highlights the possibility that iodide
emerges from the edges rather than the transportation through
the contact stack. The edge sealing
[85]
of active layers and the
introduction of barrier layers to impede the escape of highly vol-
atile halide species can rule out the problem conveniently.
[86,87]
The design criteria for the perovskite–Si TSC is quite different
from the single-junction PSC due to the prerequisite of high
transparency in the former case. The TCO covered with
metal mesh has the potential to acquire high transparency for
the top PSC in tandem configuration. This combined effect of
TCO and front metal grid results in efficient charge collection
besides reduced metal coverage. Furthermore, TCO can
potentially reduce the detrimental aspects of encapsulation
due to its inherent compatibility with industrially relevant
encapsulation techniques. Moreover, the sputtered-related
damage during the deposition of TCO can be ruled out or mini-
mized by incorporating the buffer layers such as SnOxand MoOx
deposited through the ALD before TCO for both p–i–n and
n–i–p TSC, respectively. A dense layer of SnOxhas the potential
to provide a shield against moisture permeation that eventually
contributes toward the performance from a stability point of
view.
[88]
3.5. Si Surface Texture
The perovskite performance and stability research in 2T TSC pri-
marily focuses on the polished Si wafers having roughness
regimes up to tens of nanometers. For the sake of light trapping
to maximize performance, textured surfaces play a significant
role.
[89]
The currently achieved champion efficiency of up to
31.3% for 2T perovskite/Si substantiates the significance of a tex-
tured silicon substrate.
[90]
This textured surface of the bottom Si
subcell makes the fabrication process for the deposition of the
top PSC comparatively complex. The full coverage of PSCs over
the textured Si surface is rare. The evaporation–evaporation
method, two-step evaporation processes, and solution processes
(spin coating and blade coating) are a few solution process
methods that tend to deposit micrometer-thick perovskite layer
having full coverage over the Si substrate besides accomplishing
the conformal deposition of perovskites over micrometer-sized
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (9 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
pyramids.
[20,25]
The combined effect of perovskite deposition and
surface texturing governs the morphology, growth, homogeneity,
strain, and crystallinity of the top PSC, and each one of these
plays a significant role from a stability perspective. The study
of V-groove textured devices revealed that in the case of
textured/nonplanar surfaces, PL peaks are blueshifted with rela-
tively low intensities at the valleys and edges. This effect is
because of different surface morphologies due to the local varia-
tion of compositions and strain. This phenomenon eventually
results in low current output at the edges and the valleys of
the V-groove textured surface. A strong correlation was revealed
between the PL intensity and textured morphology to realize the
perovskite incorporation for the highly efficient perovskite–Si
TSC, as reducing the pyramid size tends to homogenize the
PL distribution. The effect of micro-PL (μ-PL) is illustrated in
Figure 7a. The atomic force microscopy (AFM) images and
SEM images for various perovskite structures are depicted in
Figure 7b,c. Regarding pyramid textured regimes with 5μm
height, distinct PL spectra reveal the heterogeneity for the valleys
and pyramid top, and this phenomenon can be ascribed to
enhanced light absorption within the pyramid valleys, thereby
resulting in a prominent contribution to emission for arbitrary
intrinsic perovskite grain-to-grain PL heterogeneity. The textured
design also plays a significant role in determining the quasi-
Fermi-level splitting (QFLS). Perovskites on Si having different
pyramid structures with 2 or 5μm reveal QFLS peak position dis-
tribution, and it is possible to obviate this through secondary
smoothing etch. The application of secondary smoothing etches
improves the PL homogeneity and effectively enhances the
QFLS. The insight into the interplay between subjected strain,
texture, and morphology for the developed perovskitefilm is cru-
cial for its performance concerning stability regimes, as depicted
in Figure 5c.
4. Failure Modes for Modules
Solar modules are supposed to endure various kinds of stresses
during theirfield operations, including partial shading stress
resulting in reverse bias (RB) and hot spots, PID, thermal cycling,
and delamination. The following discussion is based on the
perovskite–Si tandem modules.
Figure 7.a) Combined 2D and 3Dμ-PL analysis of perovskitefilm on a textured surface: 2Dμ-PL depth maps (left); 3Dμ-PL, microlight current mapping,
focus height, PL peak, normalized intensity, and SEM image (right). b) AFM images and related PL peak maps of three perovskite–Si texturing methods:
5μm texturing (pyramids, average height 5μm); 5μm texturingþsmoothing (rounded pyramids, average height 5μm); 2μm texturing (pyramids, aver-
age height 2μm), shown top to bottom. c) Various perovskite structures developed on either smooth substrates or textured surfaces with diverse pattern
sizes. Part (a) Reproduced with permission.
[70]
Copyright 2020, Springer Nature Limited. Part (b) Reproduced with permission.
[21,24,132,133]
Copyright
2021, American Chemical Society.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (10 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
[20,25]
The combined effect of perovskite deposition and
surface texturing governs the morphology, growth, homogeneity,
strain, and crystallinity of the top PSC, and each one of these
plays a significant role from a stability perspective. The study
of V-groove textured devices revealed that in the case of
textured/nonplanar surfaces, PL peaks are blueshifted with rela-
tively low intensities at the valleys and edges. This effect is
because of different surface morphologies due to the local varia-
tion of compositions and strain. This phenomenon eventually
results in low current output at the edges and the valleys of
the V-groove textured surface. A strong correlation was revealed
between the PL intensity and textured morphology to realize the
perovskite incorporation for the highly efficient perovskite–Si
TSC, as reducing the pyramid size tends to homogenize the
PL distribution. The effect of micro-PL (μ-PL) is illustrated in
Figure 7a. The atomic force microscopy (AFM) images and
SEM images for various perovskite structures are depicted in
Figure 7b,c. Regarding pyramid textured regimes with 5μm
height, distinct PL spectra reveal the heterogeneity for the valleys
and pyramid top, and this phenomenon can be ascribed to
enhanced light absorption within the pyramid valleys, thereby
resulting in a prominent contribution to emission for arbitrary
intrinsic perovskite grain-to-grain PL heterogeneity. The textured
design also plays a significant role in determining the quasi-
Fermi-level splitting (QFLS). Perovskites on Si having different
pyramid structures with 2 or 5μm reveal QFLS peak position dis-
tribution, and it is possible to obviate this through secondary
smoothing etch. The application of secondary smoothing etches
improves the PL homogeneity and effectively enhances the
QFLS. The insight into the interplay between subjected strain,
texture, and morphology for the developed perovskitefilm is cru-
cial for its performance concerning stability regimes, as depicted
in Figure 5c.
4. Failure Modes for Modules
Solar modules are supposed to endure various kinds of stresses
during theirfield operations, including partial shading stress
resulting in reverse bias (RB) and hot spots, PID, thermal cycling,
and delamination. The following discussion is based on the
perovskite–Si tandem modules.
Figure 7.a) Combined 2D and 3Dμ-PL analysis of perovskitefilm on a textured surface: 2Dμ-PL depth maps (left); 3Dμ-PL, microlight current mapping,
focus height, PL peak, normalized intensity, and SEM image (right). b) AFM images and related PL peak maps of three perovskite–Si texturing methods:
5μm texturing (pyramids, average height 5μm); 5μm texturingþsmoothing (rounded pyramids, average height 5μm); 2μm texturing (pyramids, aver-
age height 2μm), shown top to bottom. c) Various perovskite structures developed on either smooth substrates or textured surfaces with diverse pattern
sizes. Part (a) Reproduced with permission.
[70]
Copyright 2020, Springer Nature Limited. Part (b) Reproduced with permission.
[21,24,132,133]
Copyright
2021, American Chemical Society.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (10 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
4.1. RB and Hotspot Formation
A partially shaded solar cell impedes the currentflow and
poses a potential danger for subjecting the unshaded cells in
the exact string to RB.Figure 8a highlights the effectiveness
of perovskite–Si tandem modules under partial shading condi-
tions. Currently, the mechanism responsible for the characteris-
tics and stability of perovskite–Si TSC under RB is an open
question. However, hysteresis of ionic nature likely plays a sig-
nificant role.
[91]
Traditionally, in semiconductor-based solar cells,
large RB voltage is liable to cause breakdown due to a large cur-
rentflow. Although there is uniform RB currentflow around the
cell, localized inhomogeneity and the local defect can raise a sce-
nario where low voltage is responsible for the breakdown, leading
to detrimental localized joule heating. Tandem cells are compar-
atively more liable to hotspot formation as perovskite inhomoge-
neity has provided evidence of hot spots when subjected to
electricfields.
[92]
Even the top PSC achieves conformal deposi-
tion. Nevertheless, there is a tendency of current concentration
at the top edges of the perovskite, resulting in localized current
flow in the top-PSC. The single-junction Si solar cell exhibits tol-
erance, but in the case of tandem configuration, this localized
heating results in adverse effects for the top PSC because of
the significant difference in thermal stability between the top
and bottom cell materials. The temperature ranges experienced
during hot spot formation are 207 and 137 °C for 2T and 4T,
respectively,
[93]
and this temperature exceeds the deposition tem-
perature threshold for the mixed-halide perovskites.
[94]
The elec-
trode design, particularly carbon-based electrodes, can play a
significant role in hotspot resistance as they have passed the con-
straints posed by the IEC 61215 standard. Followed by the detri-
mental effects of hotspots, TSC experiences power loss because
of ion migration. The partial power recovery followingfi4VRB
can be due to the ion accumulation at the device interface
promoting electrochemical reactions.
[95]
Moreover, phase segre-
gation of ions inside the perovskite occurs, and even ETL expe-
riences evidence of ion migration even to ETL. As the changes
are related to the ion migration, their recovery at MPP
is possible. The slight RB voltage of 1.1 V can be liable to tem-
porary reductions in photocurrent that eventually lead to the
shaded cell remaining pinned, even followed by a shading
event.
[96]
As threshold RB voltage is comparatively lower than
the breakdown about single perovskites for the tandem
configurations, post-RB photocurrent becomes vital from a sta-
bility perspective.
[97]
The influence of ion migration concerning
RB potential can provide further insight as the c-Si bottom cell
Figure 8.a) The effectiveness of perovskite–Si tandem modules during partial shading when linked in a string at 1000 V, with each module having a
voltage of 35.7 V in the arrangement. b) Pareto chart of the most significant degradation modes for Si modules in the last 10 years. Three relevant module
failure modes for perovskite–Si tandems are highlighted. c) Blue curve:I–Vfor unshaded (solid) and partially shaded (dashed) module. Green curve:
power–V for unshaded (solid) and partially shaded (dashed). Red line: global MPP forces shaded cells into RB. Model has 24 cells in series, showing 25%
shading causes RB. Part (a) Reproduced with permission.
[19]
Copyright 2023, Springer Nature Limited. Part (b,c) Reproduced with permission.
[134]
Copyright 2017, John Wiley & Sons.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (11 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
A partially shaded solar cell impedes the currentflow and
poses a potential danger for subjecting the unshaded cells in
the exact string to RB.Figure 8a highlights the effectiveness
of perovskite–Si tandem modules under partial shading condi-
tions. Currently, the mechanism responsible for the characteris-
tics and stability of perovskite–Si TSC under RB is an open
question. However, hysteresis of ionic nature likely plays a sig-
nificant role.
[91]
Traditionally, in semiconductor-based solar cells,
large RB voltage is liable to cause breakdown due to a large cur-
rentflow. Although there is uniform RB currentflow around the
cell, localized inhomogeneity and the local defect can raise a sce-
nario where low voltage is responsible for the breakdown, leading
to detrimental localized joule heating. Tandem cells are compar-
atively more liable to hotspot formation as perovskite inhomoge-
neity has provided evidence of hot spots when subjected to
electricfields.
[92]
Even the top PSC achieves conformal deposi-
tion. Nevertheless, there is a tendency of current concentration
at the top edges of the perovskite, resulting in localized current
flow in the top-PSC. The single-junction Si solar cell exhibits tol-
erance, but in the case of tandem configuration, this localized
heating results in adverse effects for the top PSC because of
the significant difference in thermal stability between the top
and bottom cell materials. The temperature ranges experienced
during hot spot formation are 207 and 137 °C for 2T and 4T,
respectively,
[93]
and this temperature exceeds the deposition tem-
perature threshold for the mixed-halide perovskites.
[94]
The elec-
trode design, particularly carbon-based electrodes, can play a
significant role in hotspot resistance as they have passed the con-
straints posed by the IEC 61215 standard. Followed by the detri-
mental effects of hotspots, TSC experiences power loss because
of ion migration. The partial power recovery followingfi4VRB
can be due to the ion accumulation at the device interface
promoting electrochemical reactions.
[95]
Moreover, phase segre-
gation of ions inside the perovskite occurs, and even ETL expe-
riences evidence of ion migration even to ETL. As the changes
are related to the ion migration, their recovery at MPP
is possible. The slight RB voltage of 1.1 V can be liable to tem-
porary reductions in photocurrent that eventually lead to the
shaded cell remaining pinned, even followed by a shading
event.
[96]
As threshold RB voltage is comparatively lower than
the breakdown about single perovskites for the tandem
configurations, post-RB photocurrent becomes vital from a sta-
bility perspective.
[97]
The influence of ion migration concerning
RB potential can provide further insight as the c-Si bottom cell
Figure 8.a) The effectiveness of perovskite–Si tandem modules during partial shading when linked in a string at 1000 V, with each module having a
voltage of 35.7 V in the arrangement. b) Pareto chart of the most significant degradation modes for Si modules in the last 10 years. Three relevant module
failure modes for perovskite–Si tandems are highlighted. c) Blue curve:I–Vfor unshaded (solid) and partially shaded (dashed) module. Green curve:
power–V for unshaded (solid) and partially shaded (dashed). Red line: global MPP forces shaded cells into RB. Model has 24 cells in series, showing 25%
shading causes RB. Part (a) Reproduced with permission.
[19]
Copyright 2023, Springer Nature Limited. Part (b,c) Reproduced with permission.
[134]
Copyright 2017, John Wiley & Sons.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (11 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
screens the portion of the RB potential. Figure 8b illustrates the
relative importance of degradation modes for perovskite–Si mod-
ules during the last decade. TheI–VandP–Vcurves for
unshaded and partially shaded in Figure 8c.
4.2. PID
The strings of the PV system module can accomplish a 1000 V
potential difference from end to end. Thefirst and last modules
are exposed to a potential difference ofþ500 andfi500 V, respec-
tively. A well-known power loss, known as PID, emerges upon
this regime of potential difference to modules. The quality of
encapsulated material and encapsulation, antireflective coating
properties,
[98]
the configuration of the PV system, environmental
factors in the form of humidity, condensation, temperature,
[99,100]
frame-based or frameless modules,
[101]
and dry versus wet
glass surface based on grounding conditions significantly contrib-
ute to the PID.
[102]
The migration of Na
þ
from the surface layers
and the glass cover surface into the Si substrate is the rationale for
the PID phenomena in PV s.
[103,104]
The reviews of PID et al.
provide valuable insight into the instabilities due to PID in Si
solar cells.
The PID tends to exacerbate the stability perspective for the
perovskites. The insight from the PID-driven phenomena from
the single-junction solar cell can facilitate the comprehension of
PID-based losses in the tandem configuration.
[104,105]
The appli-
cation of PID standardized test IEC 62804-1 to PSCs degraded to
almost 0, followed by 18 h operation. However, 80% of the pris-
tine output recovers after 72 h atþ1000 V.
[106]
The rationale for
this scenario is that replacing TiO
2for phenyl-C61-butyric acid
methyl ester (PCBM) as the ETL promotes stability, and the
device degrades to only 4% followed by 18 h operation at
1000 V. This enhanced performance is attributed to the mini-
mized ion migration into and transportation through the
PCBMfilm. The sign of the potential difference plays a signifi-
cant role in faster degradation atfi1000 V than atþ1000 V.
[106]
The negative sign ingresses more Na
þ
to the PSC, leading to rel-
atively more degradation.
The enhanced performance of the device is due to minimized
ion migration and transport through the PCBMfilm. Faster deg-
radation is associated withfi1000 V than atþ1000 V as the for-
mer voltage exhibits substantial Naþingress into the perovskite
TSC. Moreover, the surrounding of the encapsulant material in
perovskite/Si TSC reveals the emergence of the perovskite ions
Br
fi
and I
fi
ions.
[106]
The stability perspective of the perovskite/Si
TSC is mainly related to the mobility of the elements involved in
the perovskites. The reduced PID instability is inevitable for the
commercial viability of perovskite–Si TSC. The choice of CTLs,
perovskite composition engineering, and the comprehension of
reversible processes play a substantial role in assessing the prob-
ability of recovering daytime PID losses.
Figure 9a depicts the electrode delamination in TSC through
p–i–n structure, cell image, taped cell, postpeeling surface sce-
nario, and peeled electrode on tape. Figure 9b depicts the degra-
dation mechanisms experienced for a p–i–n single-junction PSC
during reverse biasing as a function of the voltage range. In
Figure 9b, mechanism 1 reflects perovskite shunting of active
area, mechanism 2 highlights the shunting at the metal
electrode, mechanism 3 depicts S-shape due to I
fi
in C60, and
mechanism 4 provides insight for phase segregation.
4.3. Delamination
PSCs tend to delaminate the associated cell layers when sub-
jected to thermal cycles during the day and in the light. The layers
involved in PSC fabrication possess a wide range of thermal
expansion coefficients that act as additional factors besides the
well-known encapsulation delamination. The mismatch of ther-
mal expansion can even lead to the generation of cracks. In the
perovskite/Si TSC, perovskite cell architecture involves weakly
bonded layers. The phenomena of fracture inside the cell layers
relates to PCBM for single-junction PSC
[107]
polymer-related
HTLs and 2T perovskite–Si TSC.
[108]
Higher molecular weight,
as in the case of PTAA, enhances the crack onset strain because
the more significant degree of entanglement facilitates the
deflection of cracks.
[109,110]
In humid environments, environmental factors expedite crack
formation. Additive engineering has the potential to enhance
mechanical stability. Incorporating 1,3,5,7-tetrakis-(p-benzyl
azide)-adamantane as an additive improves the adhesion
between perovskite and PTAA, leading to mechanical stability
without compromising the cell performance. Similarly, other
dopant schemes to promote mechanical stability can be
launched, especially the HTL, without any dopant having
enhanced mechanical stability. In the case of tandem perov-
skite/Si configuration for the 2T and 4T, the delamination can
be ruled out through precise control of perovskite roughness
and morphology, minimizing the stress in the functional layers
of PSC, better control of temperature and sputtering during
deposition for improved interfacial adhesion of perovskite with
adjacent layer. The rationale choice of encapsulant material hav-
ing low elastic modulus has the potential to dissipate strain
besides mitigating the PID due to associated electrical insulation
behavior.
4.4. Economic Considerations of Stability
LCOE, which depends on device efficiency and initial cost, deter-
mines the competitive advantage in a typical PV system.
[111]
The perovskite–Si tandem configuration will achieve the com-
mercial viability milestones after crossing the 26% device effi-
ciency threshold with module fabrication cost between US$90
and US$150 per m
fi2
and matching the stability performance
of c-Si cells. Although the LCOE highly depends upon lifetime
performance, the LCOE elevates with PV system degradation.
This factor will play a substantial role in determining the market
competitiveness scenarios for perovskite–Si PV devices.
The comparison of perovskite–Si TSCs based on LCOE assumes
similar degradation rates for the subcells; however, the top and
bottom cells have different degradation rates.
[112]
Analysis of
perovskite–Si TSCs revealed the cost of module generation
and installation as ($W
fi1
), and this examination did not include
any stability perspective. In the PV community, some studies
have decided on the cost without exploring the associated impact
of stability.
[113,114]
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (12 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
relative importance of degradation modes for perovskite–Si mod-
ules during the last decade. TheI–VandP–Vcurves for
unshaded and partially shaded in Figure 8c.
4.2. PID
The strings of the PV system module can accomplish a 1000 V
potential difference from end to end. Thefirst and last modules
are exposed to a potential difference ofþ500 andfi500 V, respec-
tively. A well-known power loss, known as PID, emerges upon
this regime of potential difference to modules. The quality of
encapsulated material and encapsulation, antireflective coating
properties,
[98]
the configuration of the PV system, environmental
factors in the form of humidity, condensation, temperature,
[99,100]
frame-based or frameless modules,
[101]
and dry versus wet
glass surface based on grounding conditions significantly contrib-
ute to the PID.
[102]
The migration of Na
þ
from the surface layers
and the glass cover surface into the Si substrate is the rationale for
the PID phenomena in PV s.
[103,104]
The reviews of PID et al.
provide valuable insight into the instabilities due to PID in Si
solar cells.
The PID tends to exacerbate the stability perspective for the
perovskites. The insight from the PID-driven phenomena from
the single-junction solar cell can facilitate the comprehension of
PID-based losses in the tandem configuration.
[104,105]
The appli-
cation of PID standardized test IEC 62804-1 to PSCs degraded to
almost 0, followed by 18 h operation. However, 80% of the pris-
tine output recovers after 72 h atþ1000 V.
[106]
The rationale for
this scenario is that replacing TiO
2for phenyl-C61-butyric acid
methyl ester (PCBM) as the ETL promotes stability, and the
device degrades to only 4% followed by 18 h operation at
1000 V. This enhanced performance is attributed to the mini-
mized ion migration into and transportation through the
PCBMfilm. The sign of the potential difference plays a signifi-
cant role in faster degradation atfi1000 V than atþ1000 V.
[106]
The negative sign ingresses more Na
þ
to the PSC, leading to rel-
atively more degradation.
The enhanced performance of the device is due to minimized
ion migration and transport through the PCBMfilm. Faster deg-
radation is associated withfi1000 V than atþ1000 V as the for-
mer voltage exhibits substantial Naþingress into the perovskite
TSC. Moreover, the surrounding of the encapsulant material in
perovskite/Si TSC reveals the emergence of the perovskite ions
Br
fi
and I
fi
ions.
[106]
The stability perspective of the perovskite/Si
TSC is mainly related to the mobility of the elements involved in
the perovskites. The reduced PID instability is inevitable for the
commercial viability of perovskite–Si TSC. The choice of CTLs,
perovskite composition engineering, and the comprehension of
reversible processes play a substantial role in assessing the prob-
ability of recovering daytime PID losses.
Figure 9a depicts the electrode delamination in TSC through
p–i–n structure, cell image, taped cell, postpeeling surface sce-
nario, and peeled electrode on tape. Figure 9b depicts the degra-
dation mechanisms experienced for a p–i–n single-junction PSC
during reverse biasing as a function of the voltage range. In
Figure 9b, mechanism 1 reflects perovskite shunting of active
area, mechanism 2 highlights the shunting at the metal
electrode, mechanism 3 depicts S-shape due to I
fi
in C60, and
mechanism 4 provides insight for phase segregation.
4.3. Delamination
PSCs tend to delaminate the associated cell layers when sub-
jected to thermal cycles during the day and in the light. The layers
involved in PSC fabrication possess a wide range of thermal
expansion coefficients that act as additional factors besides the
well-known encapsulation delamination. The mismatch of ther-
mal expansion can even lead to the generation of cracks. In the
perovskite/Si TSC, perovskite cell architecture involves weakly
bonded layers. The phenomena of fracture inside the cell layers
relates to PCBM for single-junction PSC
[107]
polymer-related
HTLs and 2T perovskite–Si TSC.
[108]
Higher molecular weight,
as in the case of PTAA, enhances the crack onset strain because
the more significant degree of entanglement facilitates the
deflection of cracks.
[109,110]
In humid environments, environmental factors expedite crack
formation. Additive engineering has the potential to enhance
mechanical stability. Incorporating 1,3,5,7-tetrakis-(p-benzyl
azide)-adamantane as an additive improves the adhesion
between perovskite and PTAA, leading to mechanical stability
without compromising the cell performance. Similarly, other
dopant schemes to promote mechanical stability can be
launched, especially the HTL, without any dopant having
enhanced mechanical stability. In the case of tandem perov-
skite/Si configuration for the 2T and 4T, the delamination can
be ruled out through precise control of perovskite roughness
and morphology, minimizing the stress in the functional layers
of PSC, better control of temperature and sputtering during
deposition for improved interfacial adhesion of perovskite with
adjacent layer. The rationale choice of encapsulant material hav-
ing low elastic modulus has the potential to dissipate strain
besides mitigating the PID due to associated electrical insulation
behavior.
4.4. Economic Considerations of Stability
LCOE, which depends on device efficiency and initial cost, deter-
mines the competitive advantage in a typical PV system.
[111]
The perovskite–Si tandem configuration will achieve the com-
mercial viability milestones after crossing the 26% device effi-
ciency threshold with module fabrication cost between US$90
and US$150 per m
fi2
and matching the stability performance
of c-Si cells. Although the LCOE highly depends upon lifetime
performance, the LCOE elevates with PV system degradation.
This factor will play a substantial role in determining the market
competitiveness scenarios for perovskite–Si PV devices.
The comparison of perovskite–Si TSCs based on LCOE assumes
similar degradation rates for the subcells; however, the top and
bottom cells have different degradation rates.
[112]
Analysis of
perovskite–Si TSCs revealed the cost of module generation
and installation as ($W
fi1
), and this examination did not include
any stability perspective. In the PV community, some studies
have decided on the cost without exploring the associated impact
of stability.
[113,114]
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (12 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
The studies about the technical and economic aspects of the
PV device reveal that excellent stability has far-reaching effects
that exceed the combined role of high efficiency and cost reduc-
tion. If the degradation rate of a typical PV system increases from
1% to 3% per year, then a 10% enhancement in efficiency will
sustain a similar LCOE. This 10% increase in cell efficiency
seems unviable, so the alternative is to reduce the module
manufacturing cost by 60%. This scenario makes the stability
perspective a highly eminent matter because of the impact of sta-
bility on thefinancial metrics of LCOE, the economic aspects of
running the PV system for an indefinite period, and the entire
system’s net present value.
[115]
In a PV device, in the case of a
utility-based scale system, the increase in degradation rate by
1% implies the requirement of either 3–5% more efficiency or
9–39 US cents per watt cheaper to sustain the same economic
benefit. Extrapolating this scenario to have a similar LCOE of
a single-junction Si solar cell, the perovskite–Si tandem configu-
ration needs an absolute efficiency of around 30%, considering
the 4% degradation rate. As the perovskite–Si tandem
configuration involves relatively higher costs, less than 4% deg-
radation per year will suffice the economic competitive advantage
for the perovskite–Si TSC.
Following the incorporation of stability perspective,
[116–119]
LCOE of 25% perovskite–Si TSC costs $31.59 m
fi2
increase than
Si module having 21% efficiency. This insight reveals approxi-
mately $0.86 more cost per cell in the case of perovskite–Si
TSC and a 5% improvement in LCOE, assuming the 1% degra-
dation per year.
Although a single-junction perovskite module enjoys 20%
LCOE more than a single-junction Si solar cell module, this com-
petitive advantage outweighs the 14 year module lifespan as the
top PSC has approximately $3.7 m
fi2
, assuming approx. $0.10 for
the unit cell, a 23% tandem efficiency will suffice the equivalent
LCOE for the 25 year lifetime of the module. The tandem con-
figuration has a shorter lifetime of 20 years; therefore, the com-
petitive scenario implies 27% tandem efficiency. A reduced
lifetime of up to 2–5 years for higher efficiency than SSC can
be a reasonable trade-off in favor of tandem configuration PV
Figure 9.a) Top electrode delamination in TSC: Inside part (a): (a) p–i–n structure; (b) cell image; (c) taped cell; (d) postpeeling surface exposure; (e)
peeled electrode on tape; and f ) tilted SEM image with false colors of peeled area, showing perovskite wrinkles. Purple indicates Ag/MgF
2top electrode;
yellow shows delaminated lift-offfilm. Yellow arrows highlight delamination interface. b) Degradation in solar cells during RB varies with voltage.
Breakdown voltage is typically aroundfi2 V but can range fromfi1tofi4 V. Key mechanisms include: 1) halogen penetration into C
60layer under
any reverse voltage; 2) shunt formation, prominent abovefi0.5 V, starting at metal electrodes and extending into the cell at higher voltages; and 3) phase
segregation, occurring only past breakdown voltage when currentflows through perovskite. c,d) Delamination occurs between the poly[bis(4-phe-
nyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] HTL and perovskite absorber, influenced by the polymer’s molecular weight. Higher molecular weight leads to greater
entanglement, enhancing robustness but increasing susceptibility to molecular relaxation and subcritical crack growth (left). Part (a) Reproduced with
permission.
[108]
Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. Part (b) Reproduced with permission.
[91]
Copyright 2020, Royal Chemical Society. Part (c,d)
Reproduced with permission.
[109]
Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (13 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
PV device reveal that excellent stability has far-reaching effects
that exceed the combined role of high efficiency and cost reduc-
tion. If the degradation rate of a typical PV system increases from
1% to 3% per year, then a 10% enhancement in efficiency will
sustain a similar LCOE. This 10% increase in cell efficiency
seems unviable, so the alternative is to reduce the module
manufacturing cost by 60%. This scenario makes the stability
perspective a highly eminent matter because of the impact of sta-
bility on thefinancial metrics of LCOE, the economic aspects of
running the PV system for an indefinite period, and the entire
system’s net present value.
[115]
In a PV device, in the case of a
utility-based scale system, the increase in degradation rate by
1% implies the requirement of either 3–5% more efficiency or
9–39 US cents per watt cheaper to sustain the same economic
benefit. Extrapolating this scenario to have a similar LCOE of
a single-junction Si solar cell, the perovskite–Si tandem configu-
ration needs an absolute efficiency of around 30%, considering
the 4% degradation rate. As the perovskite–Si tandem
configuration involves relatively higher costs, less than 4% deg-
radation per year will suffice the economic competitive advantage
for the perovskite–Si TSC.
Following the incorporation of stability perspective,
[116–119]
LCOE of 25% perovskite–Si TSC costs $31.59 m
fi2
increase than
Si module having 21% efficiency. This insight reveals approxi-
mately $0.86 more cost per cell in the case of perovskite–Si
TSC and a 5% improvement in LCOE, assuming the 1% degra-
dation per year.
Although a single-junction perovskite module enjoys 20%
LCOE more than a single-junction Si solar cell module, this com-
petitive advantage outweighs the 14 year module lifespan as the
top PSC has approximately $3.7 m
fi2
, assuming approx. $0.10 for
the unit cell, a 23% tandem efficiency will suffice the equivalent
LCOE for the 25 year lifetime of the module. The tandem con-
figuration has a shorter lifetime of 20 years; therefore, the com-
petitive scenario implies 27% tandem efficiency. A reduced
lifetime of up to 2–5 years for higher efficiency than SSC can
be a reasonable trade-off in favor of tandem configuration PV
Figure 9.a) Top electrode delamination in TSC: Inside part (a): (a) p–i–n structure; (b) cell image; (c) taped cell; (d) postpeeling surface exposure; (e)
peeled electrode on tape; and f ) tilted SEM image with false colors of peeled area, showing perovskite wrinkles. Purple indicates Ag/MgF
2top electrode;
yellow shows delaminated lift-offfilm. Yellow arrows highlight delamination interface. b) Degradation in solar cells during RB varies with voltage.
Breakdown voltage is typically aroundfi2 V but can range fromfi1tofi4 V. Key mechanisms include: 1) halogen penetration into C
60layer under
any reverse voltage; 2) shunt formation, prominent abovefi0.5 V, starting at metal electrodes and extending into the cell at higher voltages; and 3) phase
segregation, occurring only past breakdown voltage when currentflows through perovskite. c,d) Delamination occurs between the poly[bis(4-phe-
nyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] HTL and perovskite absorber, influenced by the polymer’s molecular weight. Higher molecular weight leads to greater
entanglement, enhancing robustness but increasing susceptibility to molecular relaxation and subcritical crack growth (left). Part (a) Reproduced with
permission.
[108]
Copyright 2022, American Chemical Society. Part (b) Reproduced with permission.
[91]
Copyright 2020, Royal Chemical Society. Part (c,d)
Reproduced with permission.
[109]
Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (13 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
systems. A 30–31% efficient perovskite–Si TSC having the
approximate cost of€12 m
fi2
for the perovskite cell implies
$0.35 for the unit cell and predicts significant improvement of
10–12% than Si modules assuming the same stability perspec-
tive. Regarding the break-even point for similar LCOEs, 21 year
lifetimes for tandem configurations are mandatory. Compared to
fixed manufacturing cost and TSC efficiency,
[116]
a relationship
between efficiency, cost, and LCOE can provide better insight.
To achieve the same LCOE, every 1% increment in efficiency
requires an enhanced cost of approximately $0.25 per cell.
[117]
These calculations precipitated by assuming the degradation
of the bottom Si cell as 0.2% per year and relatively higher deg-
radation as 0.4% per year.
Although the studies conducted to reveal the impact of degra-
dation on the economic competitiveness of perovskite–Si TSCs,
each calculation involves a specific set of assumptions for
calculating tandem efficiency, degradation rate, and the cost of
producing top PSC and bottom PSC. A generalized model has
the potential to provide deeper insight into the interaction
of these factors on perovskite/Si competitiveness. Leiping
et al.
[120]
used the Monte Carlo approach for three key variables:
the additional cost of TSC, increased degradation in the stability
of TSC, and efficiency of TSC. Following 5000 Monte Carlo iter-
ations revealed $0.50 per cell as an additional cost of the solar
cell. Assuming that TSC efficiency is 30%, LCOE improvement
is possible, similar to LCOE provided that the annual degradation
rate increase is less than 2.0% per year. For a perovskite/Si TSC,
having an additional cost of $1.50 per cell implies the same TSC
efficiency is possible with only 0.8% additional degradation.
4.5. Perovskite/Si Perspective and Outlook
An intelligent approach for delivering tandem configurations to
the PV market complements the perovskite top solar cell with a
commercially viable Si solar bottom cell. Established PV markets
have demonstrated their interest through investments in start-
ups and new divisions. Approaching 30% efficiencies at the cell
level and integration at the module in the last decade provide
convincing evidence regarding the market readiness for tandem
configurations. Degradation mechanisms, particularly intrinsic,
pose a constant obstacle to achieving the anticipated milestones
for the perovskite/Si TSCs. Phase segregation because of ion
migration from the perovskites due to its ionic nature and
redistribution eventually leads to intrinsic defects responsible
for photodecomposition and cation segregation, affecting the
long-term stability of perovkite/Si TSC. In addition to this low
long-term stability, the following paragraphs elucidate the bottle-
necks and the futuristic opportunities concerning perovskite/Si
TSC.Figure 10illustrates the challenges the perovskite–Si TSC
faces and strategies to circumvent those obstacles.
Implementing standardized test protocols as the bare mini-
mum and further complementing them with longer cycles
and stringent criteria offered by ISOS, besides feedback from
the modules in real-world scenarios, will facilitate the achieve-
ment of the challenging milestones posed by the commercial
viability of perovskite/Si TSC. The qualifying nature of the tests
provides scenarios about the pass-fail nature that needs to be sub-
stantiated by a comparatively stricter regime, which is the need of
the hour for establishing the perovskite/Si solar cell as a market
contender.
The configuration of Perovskite/Si tandem cells suggests
excessive modifications at the cell level and module level. The
brittle perovskite material and the Si have a substantial thermal
coefficient mismatch between the top perovskite and bottom Si
solar cell, eventually leading to strain for the top subcell in tan-
dem configuration. Because of this more significant mismatch,
the perovskitefilm is usually subjected to strain in perovskite
film, eventually provoking the long-term degradation of the
perovskite/Si TSCs. To meet the wide bandgap for the top
PSC, incorporating Br with the halide in perovskite opens the
bandgap, and this optimization often leads to phase segregation,
and taking care of this segregation is inevitable from the
long-term stability aspects of the perovskite/Si solar cells.
From a stability perspective in perovskite/Si TSC, the insight
about optimum stable composition for perovskite, minimizing/
obviating strain of the perovskites, and light trapping in top
perovskites can play a substantial role in enticing the focus of
the PV market.
The single crystallinity associated with quantum dot perov-
skites for the top cell in tandem configuration has the potential
to inhibit the phenomena of phase segregation. The large defect
tolerance and the resistance to the strain are promising aspects of
quantum dot perovskites.
[121]
Moreover, the stable response
against humidity and elevated heat for CsPbI3perovskites has
an ideal bandgap (1.73 eV) and reduced volatile nature for the
top perovskites, which obviates phase segregation. These materi-
als have crossed the milestone of 20.4% despite their later arrival
in the research arena of perovskites.
[122]
Incorporating the bifa-
cial Si bottom cell in tandem configuration has revealed the
enhanced stability of the PV device. The bifacial configuration
in the 2T TSC perovskite generates enormous photocurrent to
match the current between the top and bottom cells, and this
obviates the necessity of the wide bandgap perovskite
through the incorporation of Br that is responsible for phase
segregation.
[81]
Moreover, introducing various climate condi-
tions, including albedo, and evaluating the device for long-term
Figure 10.Schematic of perovskite–Si TSC depicting the current
challenges and corresponding solutions. The bottomfloor illustrates
the challenges, while the topfloor depicts the respective solutions.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (14 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
approximate cost of€12 m
fi2
for the perovskite cell implies
$0.35 for the unit cell and predicts significant improvement of
10–12% than Si modules assuming the same stability perspec-
tive. Regarding the break-even point for similar LCOEs, 21 year
lifetimes for tandem configurations are mandatory. Compared to
fixed manufacturing cost and TSC efficiency,
[116]
a relationship
between efficiency, cost, and LCOE can provide better insight.
To achieve the same LCOE, every 1% increment in efficiency
requires an enhanced cost of approximately $0.25 per cell.
[117]
These calculations precipitated by assuming the degradation
of the bottom Si cell as 0.2% per year and relatively higher deg-
radation as 0.4% per year.
Although the studies conducted to reveal the impact of degra-
dation on the economic competitiveness of perovskite–Si TSCs,
each calculation involves a specific set of assumptions for
calculating tandem efficiency, degradation rate, and the cost of
producing top PSC and bottom PSC. A generalized model has
the potential to provide deeper insight into the interaction
of these factors on perovskite/Si competitiveness. Leiping
et al.
[120]
used the Monte Carlo approach for three key variables:
the additional cost of TSC, increased degradation in the stability
of TSC, and efficiency of TSC. Following 5000 Monte Carlo iter-
ations revealed $0.50 per cell as an additional cost of the solar
cell. Assuming that TSC efficiency is 30%, LCOE improvement
is possible, similar to LCOE provided that the annual degradation
rate increase is less than 2.0% per year. For a perovskite/Si TSC,
having an additional cost of $1.50 per cell implies the same TSC
efficiency is possible with only 0.8% additional degradation.
4.5. Perovskite/Si Perspective and Outlook
An intelligent approach for delivering tandem configurations to
the PV market complements the perovskite top solar cell with a
commercially viable Si solar bottom cell. Established PV markets
have demonstrated their interest through investments in start-
ups and new divisions. Approaching 30% efficiencies at the cell
level and integration at the module in the last decade provide
convincing evidence regarding the market readiness for tandem
configurations. Degradation mechanisms, particularly intrinsic,
pose a constant obstacle to achieving the anticipated milestones
for the perovskite/Si TSCs. Phase segregation because of ion
migration from the perovskites due to its ionic nature and
redistribution eventually leads to intrinsic defects responsible
for photodecomposition and cation segregation, affecting the
long-term stability of perovkite/Si TSC. In addition to this low
long-term stability, the following paragraphs elucidate the bottle-
necks and the futuristic opportunities concerning perovskite/Si
TSC.Figure 10illustrates the challenges the perovskite–Si TSC
faces and strategies to circumvent those obstacles.
Implementing standardized test protocols as the bare mini-
mum and further complementing them with longer cycles
and stringent criteria offered by ISOS, besides feedback from
the modules in real-world scenarios, will facilitate the achieve-
ment of the challenging milestones posed by the commercial
viability of perovskite/Si TSC. The qualifying nature of the tests
provides scenarios about the pass-fail nature that needs to be sub-
stantiated by a comparatively stricter regime, which is the need of
the hour for establishing the perovskite/Si solar cell as a market
contender.
The configuration of Perovskite/Si tandem cells suggests
excessive modifications at the cell level and module level. The
brittle perovskite material and the Si have a substantial thermal
coefficient mismatch between the top perovskite and bottom Si
solar cell, eventually leading to strain for the top subcell in tan-
dem configuration. Because of this more significant mismatch,
the perovskitefilm is usually subjected to strain in perovskite
film, eventually provoking the long-term degradation of the
perovskite/Si TSCs. To meet the wide bandgap for the top
PSC, incorporating Br with the halide in perovskite opens the
bandgap, and this optimization often leads to phase segregation,
and taking care of this segregation is inevitable from the
long-term stability aspects of the perovskite/Si solar cells.
From a stability perspective in perovskite/Si TSC, the insight
about optimum stable composition for perovskite, minimizing/
obviating strain of the perovskites, and light trapping in top
perovskites can play a substantial role in enticing the focus of
the PV market.
The single crystallinity associated with quantum dot perov-
skites for the top cell in tandem configuration has the potential
to inhibit the phenomena of phase segregation. The large defect
tolerance and the resistance to the strain are promising aspects of
quantum dot perovskites.
[121]
Moreover, the stable response
against humidity and elevated heat for CsPbI3perovskites has
an ideal bandgap (1.73 eV) and reduced volatile nature for the
top perovskites, which obviates phase segregation. These materi-
als have crossed the milestone of 20.4% despite their later arrival
in the research arena of perovskites.
[122]
Incorporating the bifa-
cial Si bottom cell in tandem configuration has revealed the
enhanced stability of the PV device. The bifacial configuration
in the 2T TSC perovskite generates enormous photocurrent to
match the current between the top and bottom cells, and this
obviates the necessity of the wide bandgap perovskite
through the incorporation of Br that is responsible for phase
segregation.
[81]
Moreover, introducing various climate condi-
tions, including albedo, and evaluating the device for long-term
Figure 10.Schematic of perovskite–Si TSC depicting the current
challenges and corresponding solutions. The bottomfloor illustrates
the challenges, while the topfloor depicts the respective solutions.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (14 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
stability promote stability and energy yield for TSC.
Pragmatically, sometimes, the Si bottom cell appears as a limit-
ing factor in perovskite/Si TSCs, and this scenario forces the
operation of top PSCs at enhanced carrier densities, eventually
leading to phase segregation, which poses a significant obstacle
for the highly efficient and stable device.
The promising aspect of the transparent contact design of the
perovskite subcell in tandem configuration is that it minimizes
the metal quantity and significantly mitigates the metal diffusion
in the perovskite layer. Incorporating an intrinsically stable and
dense buffer layer can inhibit the migration of perovskite ions to
the contacts and electrodes. The interface quality of perovskite/Si
TSC has a significant role in the highly efficient and stable
response. Most HJT bottom cells have p–i–n polarity pairs with
perovskite top cells in tandem architecture. However, the tem-
perature sensitivity of HJT cells primarily poses challenges
regarding the fabrication process, material choices, and the con-
figuration design of the perovskite top cell. The advent of
TOPCon Si solar cells can resolve the problem due to their
potential to endure high temperatures and thus allow high-
temperature processes by incorporating efficient CTLs like
TiOxand NiOx. A highly efficient TSC having TOPCon as the
bottom cell has already exhibited for both p–i–n and n–i–p polari-
ties, but a relatively stable response is essential for both cell and
module levels.
[26,123]
Unlike single-junction solar cells, encapsulation for TSC is
comparatively challenging because less stable compositions
are often selected to cross the threshold of PCE in the efficient
PV devices arena. Using more layers in tandem configurations is
another aspect that brings more constraints for highly efficient Si
solar cells. At the module level, RB, PID, and delamination pro-
vide insight into reliability analyses, and tandem-specific modi-
fications have the potential to bring enhanced predictability
regarding module failure. Further insight is required to explore
the efficacy of various Si bottom cell designs and polarity, Si sur-
face texture, and composition engineering for the top PSC. The
temperature constraints for the perovskite plays a crucial role in
the selection of encapsulation material for PSC. Polyolefin elas-
tomer and thermoplastic polyurethane stand out as promising
material for encapsulation.
[124–127]
Mechanically stacked 4T and 3T cell architectures are not so
common at the moment that the research apart from 2T PSCs
can bring some promising aspects from a stability perspective.
In the case of a 4T PSC, there is a possibility of replacing the
degraded perovskite top cell with a new one when needed.
Cost analysis of replacement process perovskite in perovskite/
Si TSCs can provide insight into the viability of this approach.
The economic perspective of perovskite/Si TSCs revealed that
TSC efficiency in the range of 24–27% for a period of 15–21 years
lifetime is the bare minimum, keeping in view the commercial
milestones at the annual degradation rate of 4% per year for the
module having an efficiency of 30%; the perovskite–Si TSC life-
time is supposed to acquire the equivalent LCOE to single-
junction solar cell.
All-perovskite TSC is the way forward that has the potential t to
take care of the issues due to the substantial difference in thermal
mismatch between the top perovskite and bottom Si solar cell.
This very tandem configuration has already achieved 28.0%
and 21.7% for an area of 0.049 cm
2
device and 20.25 minimodule
level,
[128]
respectively.
[129]
The realization of stable perovskite–
perovskite TSC is a very challenging milestone.
[130]
Incor-
porating Br greater than 40% to achieve the optimum
wide-bandgap 1.8 eV top cell promotes phase segregation. The
introduction of Sn
2þ
as composition engineering of bottom Si
is also susceptible to oxidation to Sn
4þ
.
[131]
As the all-perovskite
TSC is going through its early optimization, an encapsulated
perovskite/perovskite minimodule has been reported that can
sustain only 75% PCE under 1 sun illumination at ambient tem-
perature for 500 h at the MPP.
[128]
Within a decade, the exem-
plary success of perovskite/Si among tandem configurations
achieved 30% PCE. The way forward is to emphasize addressing
the stability issue by exploring the options available to enhance
the stability. Dedicated research in the next 5–10 years will
address the stability issues promoting the commercial viability
of perovskite/Si TSC as one of the leading PV solar cells.
5. Conclusion
The different stressors like damp-heat test, phase stability, cur-
rent matching, and design of electrodes have been evaluated for
the perovskite–Si TSCs. The opposite behavior in terms of
bandgap variation needs to be considered as the top perovskite
Si cell increases its bandgap but the bottom Si cell closes its
bandgap. The Si surface texture also determines the fabrication
process of the top PSC. Technoeconomic aspect with reference to
commercialization has also been considered and it was
highlighted that for the same LCOE stability aspects must be
accommodated as opposed to the current scenario where the effi-
ciency and cost-based analysis are performed for future goals
anticipated that cannot match the real-world requirements.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants from the New Renewable Energy
Technology Development Program of the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) funded by the Korean
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) (Project Nos.
20213030010400 and 20224000000360).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
perovskite/Si, stability, tandem cells
Received: November 24, 2023
Revised: December 25, 2023
Published online: March 5, 2024
[1] H. Li, W. Zhang,Chem. Rev.2020,120, 9835.
[2] C. Messmer, A. Fell, F. Feldmann, N. Wohrle, J. Schon, M. Hermle,
IEEE J. Photovoltaics2020,10, 335.
[3] C. Battaglia, A. Cuevas, S. De Wolf,Energy Environ. Sci.2016,9, 1552.
[4] J. Li, E. Alvianto, Y. Hou,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2022,14, 34262.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (15 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
Pragmatically, sometimes, the Si bottom cell appears as a limit-
ing factor in perovskite/Si TSCs, and this scenario forces the
operation of top PSCs at enhanced carrier densities, eventually
leading to phase segregation, which poses a significant obstacle
for the highly efficient and stable device.
The promising aspect of the transparent contact design of the
perovskite subcell in tandem configuration is that it minimizes
the metal quantity and significantly mitigates the metal diffusion
in the perovskite layer. Incorporating an intrinsically stable and
dense buffer layer can inhibit the migration of perovskite ions to
the contacts and electrodes. The interface quality of perovskite/Si
TSC has a significant role in the highly efficient and stable
response. Most HJT bottom cells have p–i–n polarity pairs with
perovskite top cells in tandem architecture. However, the tem-
perature sensitivity of HJT cells primarily poses challenges
regarding the fabrication process, material choices, and the con-
figuration design of the perovskite top cell. The advent of
TOPCon Si solar cells can resolve the problem due to their
potential to endure high temperatures and thus allow high-
temperature processes by incorporating efficient CTLs like
TiOxand NiOx. A highly efficient TSC having TOPCon as the
bottom cell has already exhibited for both p–i–n and n–i–p polari-
ties, but a relatively stable response is essential for both cell and
module levels.
[26,123]
Unlike single-junction solar cells, encapsulation for TSC is
comparatively challenging because less stable compositions
are often selected to cross the threshold of PCE in the efficient
PV devices arena. Using more layers in tandem configurations is
another aspect that brings more constraints for highly efficient Si
solar cells. At the module level, RB, PID, and delamination pro-
vide insight into reliability analyses, and tandem-specific modi-
fications have the potential to bring enhanced predictability
regarding module failure. Further insight is required to explore
the efficacy of various Si bottom cell designs and polarity, Si sur-
face texture, and composition engineering for the top PSC. The
temperature constraints for the perovskite plays a crucial role in
the selection of encapsulation material for PSC. Polyolefin elas-
tomer and thermoplastic polyurethane stand out as promising
material for encapsulation.
[124–127]
Mechanically stacked 4T and 3T cell architectures are not so
common at the moment that the research apart from 2T PSCs
can bring some promising aspects from a stability perspective.
In the case of a 4T PSC, there is a possibility of replacing the
degraded perovskite top cell with a new one when needed.
Cost analysis of replacement process perovskite in perovskite/
Si TSCs can provide insight into the viability of this approach.
The economic perspective of perovskite/Si TSCs revealed that
TSC efficiency in the range of 24–27% for a period of 15–21 years
lifetime is the bare minimum, keeping in view the commercial
milestones at the annual degradation rate of 4% per year for the
module having an efficiency of 30%; the perovskite–Si TSC life-
time is supposed to acquire the equivalent LCOE to single-
junction solar cell.
All-perovskite TSC is the way forward that has the potential t to
take care of the issues due to the substantial difference in thermal
mismatch between the top perovskite and bottom Si solar cell.
This very tandem configuration has already achieved 28.0%
and 21.7% for an area of 0.049 cm
2
device and 20.25 minimodule
level,
[128]
respectively.
[129]
The realization of stable perovskite–
perovskite TSC is a very challenging milestone.
[130]
Incor-
porating Br greater than 40% to achieve the optimum
wide-bandgap 1.8 eV top cell promotes phase segregation. The
introduction of Sn
2þ
as composition engineering of bottom Si
is also susceptible to oxidation to Sn
4þ
.
[131]
As the all-perovskite
TSC is going through its early optimization, an encapsulated
perovskite/perovskite minimodule has been reported that can
sustain only 75% PCE under 1 sun illumination at ambient tem-
perature for 500 h at the MPP.
[128]
Within a decade, the exem-
plary success of perovskite/Si among tandem configurations
achieved 30% PCE. The way forward is to emphasize addressing
the stability issue by exploring the options available to enhance
the stability. Dedicated research in the next 5–10 years will
address the stability issues promoting the commercial viability
of perovskite/Si TSC as one of the leading PV solar cells.
5. Conclusion
The different stressors like damp-heat test, phase stability, cur-
rent matching, and design of electrodes have been evaluated for
the perovskite–Si TSCs. The opposite behavior in terms of
bandgap variation needs to be considered as the top perovskite
Si cell increases its bandgap but the bottom Si cell closes its
bandgap. The Si surface texture also determines the fabrication
process of the top PSC. Technoeconomic aspect with reference to
commercialization has also been considered and it was
highlighted that for the same LCOE stability aspects must be
accommodated as opposed to the current scenario where the effi-
ciency and cost-based analysis are performed for future goals
anticipated that cannot match the real-world requirements.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants from the New Renewable Energy
Technology Development Program of the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) funded by the Korean
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) (Project Nos.
20213030010400 and 20224000000360).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
perovskite/Si, stability, tandem cells
Received: November 24, 2023
Revised: December 25, 2023
Published online: March 5, 2024
[1] H. Li, W. Zhang,Chem. Rev.2020,120, 9835.
[2] C. Messmer, A. Fell, F. Feldmann, N. Wohrle, J. Schon, M. Hermle,
IEEE J. Photovoltaics2020,10, 335.
[3] C. Battaglia, A. Cuevas, S. De Wolf,Energy Environ. Sci.2016,9, 1552.
[4] J. Li, E. Alvianto, Y. Hou,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2022,14, 34262.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (15 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
[5] J. Jean, M. Woodhouse, V. Bulovi´c,Joule2019,3, 2824.
[6] A. Richter, M. Hermle, S. W. Glunz,IEEE J. Photovoltaics2013,3,
1184.
[7] Z. Yu, M. Leilaeioun, Z. Holman,Nat. Energy2016,16137, 137.
[8] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Best Research-Cell
Efficiencies, https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/cell-pv-eff-
emergingpv.png, (accessed: December 2023).
[9] M. A. Green, A. Ho-Baillie, H. J. Snaith,Nat. Photonics2014,8, 506.
[10] J. J. Yoo, G. Seo, M. R. Chua, T. G. Park, Y. Lu, F. Rotermund,
Y.-K. Kim, C. S. Moon, N. J. Jeon, J.-P. Correa-Baena, V. Bulovi´c,
S. S. Shin, M. G. Bawendi, J. Seo,Nature2021,590, 587.
[11] M. Kim, J. Jeong, H. Lu, T. K. Lee, F. T. Eickemeyer, Y. Liu, I. W. Choi,
S. J. Choi, Y. Jo, H.-B. Kim, S.-I. Mo, Y.-K. Kim, H. Lee, N. G. An,
S. Cho, W. R. Tress, S. M. Zakeeruddin, A. Hagfeldt, J. Y. Kim,
M. Grätzel, D. S. Kim,Science2022,375, 302.
[12] B. Chen, N. Ren, Y. Li, L. Yan, S. Mazumdar, Y. Zhao, X. Zhang,Adv.
Energy Mater.2022,12, 2003628.
[13] A. Abbasiyan, M. Noori, H. Baghban,Mater. Today Energy2022,28,
101055.
[14] R. E. Brandt, J. R. Poindexter, P. Gorai, R. C. Kurchin, R. L. Z. Hoye,
L. Nienhaus, M. W. B. Wilson, J. A. Polizzotti, R. Sereika,
R.Žaltauskas, L. C. Lee, J. L. Macmanus-Driscoll, M. Bawendi,
V. Stevanovi´c, T. Buonassisi,Chem. Mater.2017,29, 4667.
[15] H. Zhu, S. Teale, M. N. Lintangpradipto, S. Mahesh, B. Chen,
M. D. Mcgehee, E. H. Sargent, O. M. Bakr,Nat. Rev. Mater.2023,
8, 569.
[16] X. Y. Chin, D. Turkay, J. A. Steele, S. Tabean, S. Eswara, M. Mensi,
P. Fiala, C. M. Wolff, A. Paracchino, K. Artuk, D. Jacobs, Q. Guesnay,
F. Sahli, G. Andreatta, M. Boccard, Q. Jeangros, C. Ballif,Science
2023,381, 59.
[17] S. Mariotti, E. Köhnen, F. Scheler, K. Sveinbjörnsson,
L. Zimmermann, M. Piot, F. Yang, B. Li, J. Warby, A. Musiienko,
D. Menzel, F. Lang, S. Keßler, I. Levine, D. Mantione, A. Al-
Ashouri, M. S. Härtel, K. Xu, A. Cruz, J. Kurpiers, P. Wagner,
H. Köbler, J. Li, A. Magomedov, D. Mecerreyes, E. Unger,
A. Abate, M. Stolterfoht, B. Stannowski, R. Schlatmann, L. Korte,
S. Albrecht,Science2023,381, 63.
[18] M. V. Khenkin, E. A. Katz, A. Abate, G. Bardizza, J. J. Berry, C. Brabec,
F. Brunetti, V. Bulovi´c, Q. Burlingame, A. Di Carlo, R. Cheacharoen,
Nat. Energy2020,5, 35.
[19] L. Duan, D. Walter, N. Chang, J. Bullock, D. Kang, S. P. Phang,
K. Weber, T. White, D. Macdonald, K. Catchpole, H. Shen,Nat.
Rev. Mater.2023,8, 261.
[20] F. Sahli, J. Werner, B. A. Kamino, M. Bräuninger, R. Monnard,
B. Paviet-Salomon, L. Barraud, L. Ding, J. J. Diaz Leon,
D. Sacchetto, G. Cattaneo, M. Despeisse, M. Boccard, S. Nicolay,
Q. Jeangros, B. Niesen, C. Ballif,Nat. Mater.2018,17, 820.
[21] A. Al-Ashouri, E. Köhnen, B. Li, A. Magomedov, H. Hempel,
P. Caprioglio, J. A. Márquez, A. B. Morales Vilches,
E. Kasparavicius, J. A. Smith, N. Phung,Science2020,370, 1300.
[22] H. Shen, D. Walter, Y. Wu, K. C. Fong, D. A. Jacobs, T. Duong, J. Peng,
K. Weber, T. P. White, K. R. Catchpole,Adv. Energy Mater.2020,10,
1902840.
[23] L. L. Yan, C. Han, B. Shi, Y. Zhao, X. D. Zhang,Mater. Today Nano
2019,7, 100045.
[24] Y. Hou, E. Aydin, M. De Bastiani, C. Xiao, F. H. Isikgor, D. J. Xue,
B. Chen, H. Chen, B. Bahrami, A. H. Chowdhury, A. Johnston,
Science2020,367, 1135.
[25] S. Zhumagali, F. H. Isikgor, P. Maity, J. Yin, E. Ugur, M. De Bastiani,
A. S. Subbiah, A. J. Mirabelli, R. Azmi, G. T. Harrison, J. Troughton,
Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11, 2101662.
[26] H. Shen, S. T. Omelchenko, D. A. Jacobs, S. Yalamanchili, Y. Wan,
D. Yan, P. Phang, T. Duong, Y. Wu, Y. Yin, C. Samundsett,
J. Peng, N. Wu, T. P. White, G. G. Andersson, N. S. Lewis,
K. R. Catchpole,Sci. Adv.2018,4, eaau9711.
[27] Y. Li, B. Shi, Q. Xu, L. Yan, N. Ren, Y. Chen, W. Han, Q. Huang,
Y. Zhao, X. Zhang,Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11, 2102046.
[28] R. Azmi, E. Ugur, A. Seitkhan, F. Aljamaan, A. S. Subbiah, J. Liu,
G. T. Harrison, M. I. Nugraha, M. K. Eswaran, M. Babics,
Y. Chen, F. Xu, T. G. Allen, A. Rehman, C.-L. Wang,
T. D. Anthopoulos, U. Schwingenschlögl, M. De Bastiani, E. Aydin,
S. De Wolf,Science2022,376, 73.
[29] M. Mohammadi, S. Gholipour, M. Malekshahi Byranvand, Y. Abdi,
N. Taghavinia, M. Saliba,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2021,13, 45455.
[30] J. Liu, E. Aydin, J. Yin, M. De Bastiani, F. H. Isikgor, A. U. Rehman,
E. Yengel, E. Ugur, G. T. Harrison, M. Wang, Y. Gao,Joule2021,5,
3169.
[31] J. Liu, M. De Bastiani, E. Aydin, G. T. Harrison, Y. Gao, R. R. Pradhan,
M. K. Eswaran, M. Mandal, W. Yan, A. Seitkhan, M. Babics,Science
2022,377, 302.
[32] R. Cheacharoen, C. C. Boyd, G. F. Burkhard, T. Leijtens, J. A. Raiford,
K. A. Bush, S. F. Bent, M. D. Mcgehee,Sustainable Energy Fuels2018,
2, 2398.
[33] M. C. Brennan, S. Draguta, P. V. Kamat, M. Kuno,ACS Energy Lett.
2018,3, 204.
[34] Y. Tong, A. Najar, L. Wang, L. Liu, M. Du, J. Yang, J. Li, K. Wang,
S. F. Liu,Adv. Sci.2022,9, 2105085.
[35] E. T. Hoke, D. J. Slotcavage, E. R. Dohner, A. R. Bowring,
H. I. Karunadasa, M. D. Mcgehee,Chem. Sci.2015,6, 613.
[36] S. Draguta, O. Sharia, S. J. Yoon, M. C. Brennan, Y. V. Morozov,
J. S. Manser, P. V. Kamat, W. F. Schneider, M. Kuno,Nat.
Commun.2017,8, 200.
[37] R. E. Beal, N. Z. Hagström, J. Barrier, A. Gold-Parker, R. Prasanna,
K. A. Bush, D. Passarello, L. T. Schelhas, K. Brüning,
C. J. Tassone, H.-G. Steinrück, M. D. Mcgehee, M. F. Toney,
A. F. Nogueira,Matter2020,2, 207.
[38] A. D. Marshall, J. Acharya, G. Alkhalifah, B. Kattel, W.-L. Chan,
J. Z. Wu,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2021,13, 33609.
[39] R. A. Kerner, Z. Xu, B. W. Larson, B. P. Rand,Joule2021,5, 2273.
[40] S. J. Yoon, S. Draguta, J. S. Manser, O. Sharia, W. F. Schneider,
M. Kuno, P. V. Kamat,ACS Energy Lett.2016,1, 290.
[41] M. Kuno, M. C. Brennan,Matter2020,2, 21.
[42] A. J. Knight, J. B. Patel, H. J. Snaith, M. B. Johnston, L. M. Herz,
Adv. Energy Mater.2020,10, 1903488.
[43] A. J. Barker, A. Sadhanala, F. Deschler, M. Gandini, S. P. Senanayak,
P. M. Pearce, E. Mosconi, A. J. Pearson, Y. Wu, A. R. Srimath
Kandada, T. Leijtens, F. De Angelis, S. E. Dutton, A. Petrozza,
R. H. Friend,ACS Energy Lett.2017,2, 1416.
[44] R. E. Beal, D. J. Slotcavage, T. Leijtens, A. R. Bowring, R. A. Belisle,
W. H. Nguyen, G. F. Burkhard, E. T. Hoke, M. D. Mcgehee,J. Phys.
Chem. Lett.2016,7, 746.
[45] D. J. Slotcavage, H. I. Karunadasa, M. D. Mcgehee,ACS Energy Lett.
2016,1, 1199.
[46] T. Duong, Y. L. Wu, H. Shen, J. Peng, X. Fu, D. Jacobs, E.-C. Wang,
T. C. Kho, K. C. Fong, M. Stocks, E. Franklin, A. Blakers, N. Zin,
K. Mcintosh, W. Li, Y.-B. Cheng, T. P. White, K. Weber,
K. Catchpole,Adv. Energy Mater.2017,7, 1700228.
[47] S. G. Ji, I. J. Park, H. Chang, J. H. Park, G. P. Hong, B. K. Choi,
J. H. Jang, Y. J. Choi, H. W. Lim, Y. J. Ahn, S. J. Park, K. T. Nam,
T. Hyeon, J. Park, D. H. Kim, J. Y. Kim,Joule2022,6, 2390.
[48] Y. Zhou, I. Poli, D. Meggiolaro, F. De Angelis, A. Petrozza,Nat. Rev.
Mater.2021,6, 986.
[49] W. Mao, C. R. Hall, S. Bernardi, Y.-B. Cheng, A. Widmer-Cooper,
T. A. Smith, U. Bach,Nat. Mater.2021,20, 55.
[50] I. L. Braly, R. J. Stoddard, A. Rajagopal, A. R. Uhl, J. K. Katahara,
A. K.-Y. Jen, H. W. Hillhouse,ACS Energy Lett.2017,2, 1841.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (16 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
[6] A. Richter, M. Hermle, S. W. Glunz,IEEE J. Photovoltaics2013,3,
1184.
[7] Z. Yu, M. Leilaeioun, Z. Holman,Nat. Energy2016,16137, 137.
[8] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Best Research-Cell
Efficiencies, https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/images/cell-pv-eff-
emergingpv.png, (accessed: December 2023).
[9] M. A. Green, A. Ho-Baillie, H. J. Snaith,Nat. Photonics2014,8, 506.
[10] J. J. Yoo, G. Seo, M. R. Chua, T. G. Park, Y. Lu, F. Rotermund,
Y.-K. Kim, C. S. Moon, N. J. Jeon, J.-P. Correa-Baena, V. Bulovi´c,
S. S. Shin, M. G. Bawendi, J. Seo,Nature2021,590, 587.
[11] M. Kim, J. Jeong, H. Lu, T. K. Lee, F. T. Eickemeyer, Y. Liu, I. W. Choi,
S. J. Choi, Y. Jo, H.-B. Kim, S.-I. Mo, Y.-K. Kim, H. Lee, N. G. An,
S. Cho, W. R. Tress, S. M. Zakeeruddin, A. Hagfeldt, J. Y. Kim,
M. Grätzel, D. S. Kim,Science2022,375, 302.
[12] B. Chen, N. Ren, Y. Li, L. Yan, S. Mazumdar, Y. Zhao, X. Zhang,Adv.
Energy Mater.2022,12, 2003628.
[13] A. Abbasiyan, M. Noori, H. Baghban,Mater. Today Energy2022,28,
101055.
[14] R. E. Brandt, J. R. Poindexter, P. Gorai, R. C. Kurchin, R. L. Z. Hoye,
L. Nienhaus, M. W. B. Wilson, J. A. Polizzotti, R. Sereika,
R.Žaltauskas, L. C. Lee, J. L. Macmanus-Driscoll, M. Bawendi,
V. Stevanovi´c, T. Buonassisi,Chem. Mater.2017,29, 4667.
[15] H. Zhu, S. Teale, M. N. Lintangpradipto, S. Mahesh, B. Chen,
M. D. Mcgehee, E. H. Sargent, O. M. Bakr,Nat. Rev. Mater.2023,
8, 569.
[16] X. Y. Chin, D. Turkay, J. A. Steele, S. Tabean, S. Eswara, M. Mensi,
P. Fiala, C. M. Wolff, A. Paracchino, K. Artuk, D. Jacobs, Q. Guesnay,
F. Sahli, G. Andreatta, M. Boccard, Q. Jeangros, C. Ballif,Science
2023,381, 59.
[17] S. Mariotti, E. Köhnen, F. Scheler, K. Sveinbjörnsson,
L. Zimmermann, M. Piot, F. Yang, B. Li, J. Warby, A. Musiienko,
D. Menzel, F. Lang, S. Keßler, I. Levine, D. Mantione, A. Al-
Ashouri, M. S. Härtel, K. Xu, A. Cruz, J. Kurpiers, P. Wagner,
H. Köbler, J. Li, A. Magomedov, D. Mecerreyes, E. Unger,
A. Abate, M. Stolterfoht, B. Stannowski, R. Schlatmann, L. Korte,
S. Albrecht,Science2023,381, 63.
[18] M. V. Khenkin, E. A. Katz, A. Abate, G. Bardizza, J. J. Berry, C. Brabec,
F. Brunetti, V. Bulovi´c, Q. Burlingame, A. Di Carlo, R. Cheacharoen,
Nat. Energy2020,5, 35.
[19] L. Duan, D. Walter, N. Chang, J. Bullock, D. Kang, S. P. Phang,
K. Weber, T. White, D. Macdonald, K. Catchpole, H. Shen,Nat.
Rev. Mater.2023,8, 261.
[20] F. Sahli, J. Werner, B. A. Kamino, M. Bräuninger, R. Monnard,
B. Paviet-Salomon, L. Barraud, L. Ding, J. J. Diaz Leon,
D. Sacchetto, G. Cattaneo, M. Despeisse, M. Boccard, S. Nicolay,
Q. Jeangros, B. Niesen, C. Ballif,Nat. Mater.2018,17, 820.
[21] A. Al-Ashouri, E. Köhnen, B. Li, A. Magomedov, H. Hempel,
P. Caprioglio, J. A. Márquez, A. B. Morales Vilches,
E. Kasparavicius, J. A. Smith, N. Phung,Science2020,370, 1300.
[22] H. Shen, D. Walter, Y. Wu, K. C. Fong, D. A. Jacobs, T. Duong, J. Peng,
K. Weber, T. P. White, K. R. Catchpole,Adv. Energy Mater.2020,10,
1902840.
[23] L. L. Yan, C. Han, B. Shi, Y. Zhao, X. D. Zhang,Mater. Today Nano
2019,7, 100045.
[24] Y. Hou, E. Aydin, M. De Bastiani, C. Xiao, F. H. Isikgor, D. J. Xue,
B. Chen, H. Chen, B. Bahrami, A. H. Chowdhury, A. Johnston,
Science2020,367, 1135.
[25] S. Zhumagali, F. H. Isikgor, P. Maity, J. Yin, E. Ugur, M. De Bastiani,
A. S. Subbiah, A. J. Mirabelli, R. Azmi, G. T. Harrison, J. Troughton,
Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11, 2101662.
[26] H. Shen, S. T. Omelchenko, D. A. Jacobs, S. Yalamanchili, Y. Wan,
D. Yan, P. Phang, T. Duong, Y. Wu, Y. Yin, C. Samundsett,
J. Peng, N. Wu, T. P. White, G. G. Andersson, N. S. Lewis,
K. R. Catchpole,Sci. Adv.2018,4, eaau9711.
[27] Y. Li, B. Shi, Q. Xu, L. Yan, N. Ren, Y. Chen, W. Han, Q. Huang,
Y. Zhao, X. Zhang,Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11, 2102046.
[28] R. Azmi, E. Ugur, A. Seitkhan, F. Aljamaan, A. S. Subbiah, J. Liu,
G. T. Harrison, M. I. Nugraha, M. K. Eswaran, M. Babics,
Y. Chen, F. Xu, T. G. Allen, A. Rehman, C.-L. Wang,
T. D. Anthopoulos, U. Schwingenschlögl, M. De Bastiani, E. Aydin,
S. De Wolf,Science2022,376, 73.
[29] M. Mohammadi, S. Gholipour, M. Malekshahi Byranvand, Y. Abdi,
N. Taghavinia, M. Saliba,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2021,13, 45455.
[30] J. Liu, E. Aydin, J. Yin, M. De Bastiani, F. H. Isikgor, A. U. Rehman,
E. Yengel, E. Ugur, G. T. Harrison, M. Wang, Y. Gao,Joule2021,5,
3169.
[31] J. Liu, M. De Bastiani, E. Aydin, G. T. Harrison, Y. Gao, R. R. Pradhan,
M. K. Eswaran, M. Mandal, W. Yan, A. Seitkhan, M. Babics,Science
2022,377, 302.
[32] R. Cheacharoen, C. C. Boyd, G. F. Burkhard, T. Leijtens, J. A. Raiford,
K. A. Bush, S. F. Bent, M. D. Mcgehee,Sustainable Energy Fuels2018,
2, 2398.
[33] M. C. Brennan, S. Draguta, P. V. Kamat, M. Kuno,ACS Energy Lett.
2018,3, 204.
[34] Y. Tong, A. Najar, L. Wang, L. Liu, M. Du, J. Yang, J. Li, K. Wang,
S. F. Liu,Adv. Sci.2022,9, 2105085.
[35] E. T. Hoke, D. J. Slotcavage, E. R. Dohner, A. R. Bowring,
H. I. Karunadasa, M. D. Mcgehee,Chem. Sci.2015,6, 613.
[36] S. Draguta, O. Sharia, S. J. Yoon, M. C. Brennan, Y. V. Morozov,
J. S. Manser, P. V. Kamat, W. F. Schneider, M. Kuno,Nat.
Commun.2017,8, 200.
[37] R. E. Beal, N. Z. Hagström, J. Barrier, A. Gold-Parker, R. Prasanna,
K. A. Bush, D. Passarello, L. T. Schelhas, K. Brüning,
C. J. Tassone, H.-G. Steinrück, M. D. Mcgehee, M. F. Toney,
A. F. Nogueira,Matter2020,2, 207.
[38] A. D. Marshall, J. Acharya, G. Alkhalifah, B. Kattel, W.-L. Chan,
J. Z. Wu,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2021,13, 33609.
[39] R. A. Kerner, Z. Xu, B. W. Larson, B. P. Rand,Joule2021,5, 2273.
[40] S. J. Yoon, S. Draguta, J. S. Manser, O. Sharia, W. F. Schneider,
M. Kuno, P. V. Kamat,ACS Energy Lett.2016,1, 290.
[41] M. Kuno, M. C. Brennan,Matter2020,2, 21.
[42] A. J. Knight, J. B. Patel, H. J. Snaith, M. B. Johnston, L. M. Herz,
Adv. Energy Mater.2020,10, 1903488.
[43] A. J. Barker, A. Sadhanala, F. Deschler, M. Gandini, S. P. Senanayak,
P. M. Pearce, E. Mosconi, A. J. Pearson, Y. Wu, A. R. Srimath
Kandada, T. Leijtens, F. De Angelis, S. E. Dutton, A. Petrozza,
R. H. Friend,ACS Energy Lett.2017,2, 1416.
[44] R. E. Beal, D. J. Slotcavage, T. Leijtens, A. R. Bowring, R. A. Belisle,
W. H. Nguyen, G. F. Burkhard, E. T. Hoke, M. D. Mcgehee,J. Phys.
Chem. Lett.2016,7, 746.
[45] D. J. Slotcavage, H. I. Karunadasa, M. D. Mcgehee,ACS Energy Lett.
2016,1, 1199.
[46] T. Duong, Y. L. Wu, H. Shen, J. Peng, X. Fu, D. Jacobs, E.-C. Wang,
T. C. Kho, K. C. Fong, M. Stocks, E. Franklin, A. Blakers, N. Zin,
K. Mcintosh, W. Li, Y.-B. Cheng, T. P. White, K. Weber,
K. Catchpole,Adv. Energy Mater.2017,7, 1700228.
[47] S. G. Ji, I. J. Park, H. Chang, J. H. Park, G. P. Hong, B. K. Choi,
J. H. Jang, Y. J. Choi, H. W. Lim, Y. J. Ahn, S. J. Park, K. T. Nam,
T. Hyeon, J. Park, D. H. Kim, J. Y. Kim,Joule2022,6, 2390.
[48] Y. Zhou, I. Poli, D. Meggiolaro, F. De Angelis, A. Petrozza,Nat. Rev.
Mater.2021,6, 986.
[49] W. Mao, C. R. Hall, S. Bernardi, Y.-B. Cheng, A. Widmer-Cooper,
T. A. Smith, U. Bach,Nat. Mater.2021,20, 55.
[50] I. L. Braly, R. J. Stoddard, A. Rajagopal, A. R. Uhl, J. K. Katahara,
A. K.-Y. Jen, H. W. Hillhouse,ACS Energy Lett.2017,2, 1841.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (16 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
[51] M. Hu, C. Bi, Y. Yuan, Y. Bai, J. Huang,Adv. Sci.2016,3, 1500301.
[52] Y. Zhou, Y.-H. Jia, H.-H. Fang, M. A. Loi, F.-Y. Xie, L. Gong, M.-C. Qin,
X.-H. Lu, C.-P. Wong, N. Zhao,Adv. Funct. Mater.2018,28, 1803130.
[53] M. Abdi-Jalebi, Z. Andaji-Garmaroudi, S. Cacovich, C. Stavrakas,
B. Philippe, J. M. Richter, M. Alsari, E. P. Booker, E. M. Hutter,
A. J. Pearson, S. Lilliu, T. J. Savenije, H. Rensmo, G. Divitini,
C. Ducati, R. H. Friend, S. D. Stranks,Nature2018,555, 497.
[54] W. Li, M. U. Rothmann, A. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, A. R. Pascoe, J. Lu,
L. Jiang, Y. Chen, F. Huang, Y. Peng, Q. Bao, J. Etheridge, U. Bach,
Y.-B. Cheng,Adv. Energy Mater.2017,7, 1700946.
[55] J. Xu, C. C. Boyd, Z. J. Yu, A. F. Palmstrom, D. J. Witter, B. W. Larson,
R. M. France, J. Werner, S. P. Harvey, E. J. Wolf, W. Weigand,
S. Manzoor, M. F. A. M. Van Hest, J. J. Berry, J. M. Luther,
Z. C. Holman, M. D. Mcgehee,Science2020,367, 1097.
[56] C. Zhu, X. Niu, Y. Fu, N. Li, C. Hu, Y. Chen, X. He, G. Na, P. Liu,
H. Zai, Y. Ge, Y. Lu, X. Ke, Y. Bai, S. Yang, P. Chen, Y. Li, M. Sui,
L. Zhang, H. Zhou, Q. Chen,Nat. Commun.2019,10, 815.
[57] N. Rolston, B. L. Watson, C. D. Bailie, M. D. Mcgehee, J. P. Bastos,
R. Gehlhaar, J.-E. Kim, D. Vak, A. T. Mallajosyula, G. Gupta,
A. D. Mohite, R. H. Dauskardt,Extreme Mech. Lett.2016,9, 353.
[58] Y. Okada, Y. Tokumaru,J. Appl. Phys.1984,56, 314.
[59] A. Pisoni, J. Ja´cimovi´c, O. S. Bariši´c, M. Spina, R. Gaál, L. Forró,
E. Horváth,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2014,5, 2488.
[60] B. Li, Y. Kawakita, Y. Liu, M. Wang, M. Matsuura, K. Shibata, S. Ohira-
Kawamura, T. Yamada, S. Lin, K. Nakajima, S. Liu,Nat. Commun.
2017,8, 16086.
[61] R. Heiderhoff, T. Haeger, N. Pourdavoud, T. Hu, M. Al-Khafaji,
A. Mayer, Y. Chen, H.-C. Scheer, T. Riedl,J. Phys. Chem. C2017,
121, 28306.
[62] S. Kawano, T. Tadano, S. Iikubo,The Journal of Physical Chemistry C
2021,125, 91.
[63] N. Rolston, K. A. Bush, A. D. Printz, A. Gold-Parker, Y. Ding,
M. F. Toney, M. D. Mcgehee, R. H. Dauskardt,Adv. Energy Mater.
2018,8, 1802139.
[64] W. Meng, K. Zhang, A. Osvet, J. Zhang, W. Gruber, K. Forberich,
B. Meyer, W. Heiss, T. Unruh, N. Li, C. J. Brabec,Joule2022,6, 458.
[65] G. Kim, H. Min, K. S. Lee, D. Y. Lee, S. M. Yoon, S. I. Seok,Science
2020,370, 108.
[66] G. Kapil, T. Bessho, C. H. Ng, K. Hamada, M. Pandey,
M. A. Kamarudin, D. Hirotani, T. Kinoshita, T. Minemoto,
Q. Shen, T. Toyoda,ACS Energy Lett.2019,4, 1991.
[67] T. W. Jones, A. Osherov, M. Alsari, M. Sponseller, B. C. Duck,
Y.-K. Jung, C. Settens, F. Niroui, R. Brenes, C. V. Stan, Y. Li,
M. Abdi-Jalebi, N. Tamura, J. E. Macdonald, M. Burghammer,
R. H. Friend, V. Bulovi´c, A. Walsh, G. J. Wilson, S. Lilliu,Energy
Environ. Sci.2019,12, 596.
[68] D. Liu, D. Luo, A. N. Iqbal, K. W. P. Orr, T. A. S. Doherty, Z.-H. Lu,
S. D. Stranks, W. Zhang,Nat. Mater.2021,20, 1337.
[69] H. A. Dewi, J. Li, H. Wang, B. Chaudhary, N. Mathews, S. Mhaisalkar,
A. Bruno,Adv. Funct. Mater.2021,31, 2100557.
[70] S.-W. Lee, S. Bae, J.-K. Hwang, W. Lee, S. Lee, J. Y. Hyun, K. Cho,
S. Kim, F. D. Heinz, S. Bin Choi, D. Choi, D. Kang, J. Yang,
S. Jeong, S. J. Park, M. C. Schubert, S. Glunz, W. M. Kim,
Y. Kang, H.-S. Lee, D. Kim,Commun. Chem.2020,3, 37.
[71] A. J. Knight, L. M. Herz,Energy Environ. Sci.2020,13, 2024.
[72] N. Yang, F. Pei, J. Dou, Y. Zhao, Z. Huang, Y. Ma, S. Ma, C. Wang,
X. Zhang, H. Wang, C. Zhu, Y. Bai, H. Zhou, T. Song, Y. Chen,
Q. Chen,Adv. Energy Mater.2022,12, 2200869.
[73] D.-J. Xue, Y. Hou, S.-C. Liu, M. Wei, B. Chen, Z. Huang, Z. Li, B. Sun,
A. H. Proppe, Y. Dong, M. I. Saidaminov, S. O. Kelley, J.-S. Hu,
E. H. Sargent,Nat. Commun.2020,11, 1514.
[74] F. Zhang, B. Tu, S. Yang, K. Fan, Z. Liu, Z. Xiong, J. Zhang, W. Li,
H. Huang, C. Yu, A. K.-Y. Jen, K. Yao,Adv. Mater.2023,35, 2303139.
[75] Q. Jiang, Y. Zhao, X. Zhang, X. Yang, Y. Chen, Z. Chu, Q. Ye, X. Li,
Z. Yin, J. You,Nat. Photonics2019,13, 460.
[76] L. Wang, Q. Song, F. Pei, Y. Chen, J. Dou, H. Wang, C. Shi, X. Zhang,
R. Fan, W. Zhou, Z. Qiu, J. Kang, X. Wang, A. Lambertz, M. Sun,
X. Niu, Y. Ma, C. Zhu, H. Zhou, J. Hong, Y. Bai, W. Duan,
K. Ding, Q. Chen,Adv. Mater.2022,34, 2201315.
[77] P. Faine, S. R. Kurtz, C. Riordan, J. M. Olson,Sol. Cells1991,
31, 259.
[78] M. Jošt, G. Matiˇc, E. Köhnen, B. Li, B. Glažar, M. Jankovec,
S. Albrecht, M. Topiˇc,Sol. RRL2021,5, 2100311.
[79] T. Duong, H. K. Mulmudi, Y. L. Wu, X. Fu, H. Shen, J. Peng, N. Wu,
H. T. Nguyen, D. Macdonald, M. Lockrey, T. P. White, K. Weber,
K. Catchpole,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2017,9, 26859.
[80] E. Aydin, T. G. Allen, M. De Bastiani, L. Xu, J. Ávila, M. Salvador,
E. Van Kerschaver, S. De Wolf,Nat. Energy2020,5, 851.
[81] M. De Bastiani, A. J. Mirabelli, Y. Hou, F. Gota, E. Aydin, T. G. Allen,
J. Troughton, A. S. Subbiah, F. H. Isikgor, J. Liu, L. Xu, B. Chen, E. Van
Kerschaver, D. Baran, B. Fraboni, M. F. Salvador, U. W. Paetzold,
E. H. Sargent, S. De Wolf,Nat. Energy2021,6, 167.
[82] W. Tress, K. Domanski, B. Carlsen, A. Agarwalla, E. A. Alharbi,
M. Graetzel, A. Hagfeldt,Nat. Energy2019,4, 568.
[83] Y. Kato, L. K. Ono, M. V. Lee, S. Wang, S. R. Raga, Y. Qi,Adv. Mater.
Interfaces2015,2, 1500195.
[84] T. H. Schloemer, J. A. Raiford, T. S. Gehan, T. Moot, S. Nanayakkara,
S. P. Harvey, R. C. Bramante, S. Dunfield, A. E. Louks, A. E. Maughan,
L. Bliss, M. D. Mcgehee, M. F. A. M. Van Hest, M. O. Reese,
S. F. Bent, J. J. Berry, J. M. Luther, A. Sellinger,ACS Energy Lett.
2020,5, 2349.
[85] C. C. Boyd, R. Cheacharoen, T. Leijtens, M. D. Mcgehee,Chem. Rev.
2019,119, 3418.
[86] C. Das, M. Kot, T. Hellmann, C. Wittich, E. Mankel, I. Zimmermann,
D. Schmeisser, M. Khaja Nazeeruddin, W. Jaegermann,Cell Rep.
Phys. Sci.2020,1, 100112.
[87] F. J. Ramos, T. Maindron, S. Béchu, A. Rebai, M. Frégnaux,
M. Bouttemy, J. Rousset, P. Schulz, N. Schneider,Sustainable
Energy Fuels2018,2, 2468.
[88] K. A. Bush, A. F. Palmstrom, Z. J. Yu, M. Boccard, R. Cheacharoen,
J. P. Mailoa, D. P. Mcmeekin, R. L. Z. Hoye, C. D. Bailie, T. Leijtens,
I. M. Peters, M. C. Minichetti, N. Rolston, R. Prasanna, S. Sofia,
D. Harwood, W. Ma, F. Moghadam, H. J. Snaith, T. Buonassisi,
Z. C. Holman, S. F. Bent, M. D. Mcgehee,Nat. Energy2017,2,
17009.
[89] F. E. Subhan, A. D. Khan, A. D. Khan, N. Ullah, M. Imran, M. Noman,
RSC Adv.2020,10, 26631.
[90] J. H. Park, J. Y. Kim,Matter2022,5, 3091.
[91] R. A. Z. Razera, D. A. Jacobs, F. Fu, P. Fiala, M. Dussouillez, F. Sahli,
T. C. J. Yang, L. Ding, A. Walter, A. F. Feil, H. I. Boudinov, S. Nicolay,
C. Ballif, Q. Jeangros,J. Mater. Chem. A2020,8, 242.
[92] S. Wu, R. Chen, S. Zhang, B. H. Babu, Y. Yue, H. Zhu, Z. Yang,
C. Chen, W. Chen, Y. Huang, S. Fang, T. Liu, L. Han, W. Chen,
Nat. Commun.2019,10, 1161.
[93] J. Qian, A. F. Thomson, Y. Wu, K. J. Weber, A. W. Blakers,ACS Appl.
Energy Mater.2018,1, 3025.
[94] D. Bogachuk, K. Saddedine, D. Martineau, S. Narbey, A. Verma,
P. Gebhardt, J. P. Herterich, N. Glissmann, S. Zouhair, J. Markert,
I. E. Gould, M. D. Mcgehee, U. Würfel, A. Hinsch, L. Wagner,Sol.
RRL2022,6, 2100527.
[95] A. R. Bowring, L. Bertoluzzi, B. C. O’regan, M. D. Mcgehee,Adv.
Energy Mater.2018,8, 1702365.
[96] J. Qian, M. Ernst, D. Walter, M. A. Mahmud, P. Hacke, K. Weber,
M. Al-Jassim, A. Blakers,Sustainable Energy Fuels2020,4, 4067.
[97] E. J. Wolf, I. E. Gould, L. B. Bliss, J. J. Berry, M. D. Mcgehee,Sol. RRL
2022,6, 2100239.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (17 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
[52] Y. Zhou, Y.-H. Jia, H.-H. Fang, M. A. Loi, F.-Y. Xie, L. Gong, M.-C. Qin,
X.-H. Lu, C.-P. Wong, N. Zhao,Adv. Funct. Mater.2018,28, 1803130.
[53] M. Abdi-Jalebi, Z. Andaji-Garmaroudi, S. Cacovich, C. Stavrakas,
B. Philippe, J. M. Richter, M. Alsari, E. P. Booker, E. M. Hutter,
A. J. Pearson, S. Lilliu, T. J. Savenije, H. Rensmo, G. Divitini,
C. Ducati, R. H. Friend, S. D. Stranks,Nature2018,555, 497.
[54] W. Li, M. U. Rothmann, A. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, A. R. Pascoe, J. Lu,
L. Jiang, Y. Chen, F. Huang, Y. Peng, Q. Bao, J. Etheridge, U. Bach,
Y.-B. Cheng,Adv. Energy Mater.2017,7, 1700946.
[55] J. Xu, C. C. Boyd, Z. J. Yu, A. F. Palmstrom, D. J. Witter, B. W. Larson,
R. M. France, J. Werner, S. P. Harvey, E. J. Wolf, W. Weigand,
S. Manzoor, M. F. A. M. Van Hest, J. J. Berry, J. M. Luther,
Z. C. Holman, M. D. Mcgehee,Science2020,367, 1097.
[56] C. Zhu, X. Niu, Y. Fu, N. Li, C. Hu, Y. Chen, X. He, G. Na, P. Liu,
H. Zai, Y. Ge, Y. Lu, X. Ke, Y. Bai, S. Yang, P. Chen, Y. Li, M. Sui,
L. Zhang, H. Zhou, Q. Chen,Nat. Commun.2019,10, 815.
[57] N. Rolston, B. L. Watson, C. D. Bailie, M. D. Mcgehee, J. P. Bastos,
R. Gehlhaar, J.-E. Kim, D. Vak, A. T. Mallajosyula, G. Gupta,
A. D. Mohite, R. H. Dauskardt,Extreme Mech. Lett.2016,9, 353.
[58] Y. Okada, Y. Tokumaru,J. Appl. Phys.1984,56, 314.
[59] A. Pisoni, J. Ja´cimovi´c, O. S. Bariši´c, M. Spina, R. Gaál, L. Forró,
E. Horváth,J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2014,5, 2488.
[60] B. Li, Y. Kawakita, Y. Liu, M. Wang, M. Matsuura, K. Shibata, S. Ohira-
Kawamura, T. Yamada, S. Lin, K. Nakajima, S. Liu,Nat. Commun.
2017,8, 16086.
[61] R. Heiderhoff, T. Haeger, N. Pourdavoud, T. Hu, M. Al-Khafaji,
A. Mayer, Y. Chen, H.-C. Scheer, T. Riedl,J. Phys. Chem. C2017,
121, 28306.
[62] S. Kawano, T. Tadano, S. Iikubo,The Journal of Physical Chemistry C
2021,125, 91.
[63] N. Rolston, K. A. Bush, A. D. Printz, A. Gold-Parker, Y. Ding,
M. F. Toney, M. D. Mcgehee, R. H. Dauskardt,Adv. Energy Mater.
2018,8, 1802139.
[64] W. Meng, K. Zhang, A. Osvet, J. Zhang, W. Gruber, K. Forberich,
B. Meyer, W. Heiss, T. Unruh, N. Li, C. J. Brabec,Joule2022,6, 458.
[65] G. Kim, H. Min, K. S. Lee, D. Y. Lee, S. M. Yoon, S. I. Seok,Science
2020,370, 108.
[66] G. Kapil, T. Bessho, C. H. Ng, K. Hamada, M. Pandey,
M. A. Kamarudin, D. Hirotani, T. Kinoshita, T. Minemoto,
Q. Shen, T. Toyoda,ACS Energy Lett.2019,4, 1991.
[67] T. W. Jones, A. Osherov, M. Alsari, M. Sponseller, B. C. Duck,
Y.-K. Jung, C. Settens, F. Niroui, R. Brenes, C. V. Stan, Y. Li,
M. Abdi-Jalebi, N. Tamura, J. E. Macdonald, M. Burghammer,
R. H. Friend, V. Bulovi´c, A. Walsh, G. J. Wilson, S. Lilliu,Energy
Environ. Sci.2019,12, 596.
[68] D. Liu, D. Luo, A. N. Iqbal, K. W. P. Orr, T. A. S. Doherty, Z.-H. Lu,
S. D. Stranks, W. Zhang,Nat. Mater.2021,20, 1337.
[69] H. A. Dewi, J. Li, H. Wang, B. Chaudhary, N. Mathews, S. Mhaisalkar,
A. Bruno,Adv. Funct. Mater.2021,31, 2100557.
[70] S.-W. Lee, S. Bae, J.-K. Hwang, W. Lee, S. Lee, J. Y. Hyun, K. Cho,
S. Kim, F. D. Heinz, S. Bin Choi, D. Choi, D. Kang, J. Yang,
S. Jeong, S. J. Park, M. C. Schubert, S. Glunz, W. M. Kim,
Y. Kang, H.-S. Lee, D. Kim,Commun. Chem.2020,3, 37.
[71] A. J. Knight, L. M. Herz,Energy Environ. Sci.2020,13, 2024.
[72] N. Yang, F. Pei, J. Dou, Y. Zhao, Z. Huang, Y. Ma, S. Ma, C. Wang,
X. Zhang, H. Wang, C. Zhu, Y. Bai, H. Zhou, T. Song, Y. Chen,
Q. Chen,Adv. Energy Mater.2022,12, 2200869.
[73] D.-J. Xue, Y. Hou, S.-C. Liu, M. Wei, B. Chen, Z. Huang, Z. Li, B. Sun,
A. H. Proppe, Y. Dong, M. I. Saidaminov, S. O. Kelley, J.-S. Hu,
E. H. Sargent,Nat. Commun.2020,11, 1514.
[74] F. Zhang, B. Tu, S. Yang, K. Fan, Z. Liu, Z. Xiong, J. Zhang, W. Li,
H. Huang, C. Yu, A. K.-Y. Jen, K. Yao,Adv. Mater.2023,35, 2303139.
[75] Q. Jiang, Y. Zhao, X. Zhang, X. Yang, Y. Chen, Z. Chu, Q. Ye, X. Li,
Z. Yin, J. You,Nat. Photonics2019,13, 460.
[76] L. Wang, Q. Song, F. Pei, Y. Chen, J. Dou, H. Wang, C. Shi, X. Zhang,
R. Fan, W. Zhou, Z. Qiu, J. Kang, X. Wang, A. Lambertz, M. Sun,
X. Niu, Y. Ma, C. Zhu, H. Zhou, J. Hong, Y. Bai, W. Duan,
K. Ding, Q. Chen,Adv. Mater.2022,34, 2201315.
[77] P. Faine, S. R. Kurtz, C. Riordan, J. M. Olson,Sol. Cells1991,
31, 259.
[78] M. Jošt, G. Matiˇc, E. Köhnen, B. Li, B. Glažar, M. Jankovec,
S. Albrecht, M. Topiˇc,Sol. RRL2021,5, 2100311.
[79] T. Duong, H. K. Mulmudi, Y. L. Wu, X. Fu, H. Shen, J. Peng, N. Wu,
H. T. Nguyen, D. Macdonald, M. Lockrey, T. P. White, K. Weber,
K. Catchpole,ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2017,9, 26859.
[80] E. Aydin, T. G. Allen, M. De Bastiani, L. Xu, J. Ávila, M. Salvador,
E. Van Kerschaver, S. De Wolf,Nat. Energy2020,5, 851.
[81] M. De Bastiani, A. J. Mirabelli, Y. Hou, F. Gota, E. Aydin, T. G. Allen,
J. Troughton, A. S. Subbiah, F. H. Isikgor, J. Liu, L. Xu, B. Chen, E. Van
Kerschaver, D. Baran, B. Fraboni, M. F. Salvador, U. W. Paetzold,
E. H. Sargent, S. De Wolf,Nat. Energy2021,6, 167.
[82] W. Tress, K. Domanski, B. Carlsen, A. Agarwalla, E. A. Alharbi,
M. Graetzel, A. Hagfeldt,Nat. Energy2019,4, 568.
[83] Y. Kato, L. K. Ono, M. V. Lee, S. Wang, S. R. Raga, Y. Qi,Adv. Mater.
Interfaces2015,2, 1500195.
[84] T. H. Schloemer, J. A. Raiford, T. S. Gehan, T. Moot, S. Nanayakkara,
S. P. Harvey, R. C. Bramante, S. Dunfield, A. E. Louks, A. E. Maughan,
L. Bliss, M. D. Mcgehee, M. F. A. M. Van Hest, M. O. Reese,
S. F. Bent, J. J. Berry, J. M. Luther, A. Sellinger,ACS Energy Lett.
2020,5, 2349.
[85] C. C. Boyd, R. Cheacharoen, T. Leijtens, M. D. Mcgehee,Chem. Rev.
2019,119, 3418.
[86] C. Das, M. Kot, T. Hellmann, C. Wittich, E. Mankel, I. Zimmermann,
D. Schmeisser, M. Khaja Nazeeruddin, W. Jaegermann,Cell Rep.
Phys. Sci.2020,1, 100112.
[87] F. J. Ramos, T. Maindron, S. Béchu, A. Rebai, M. Frégnaux,
M. Bouttemy, J. Rousset, P. Schulz, N. Schneider,Sustainable
Energy Fuels2018,2, 2468.
[88] K. A. Bush, A. F. Palmstrom, Z. J. Yu, M. Boccard, R. Cheacharoen,
J. P. Mailoa, D. P. Mcmeekin, R. L. Z. Hoye, C. D. Bailie, T. Leijtens,
I. M. Peters, M. C. Minichetti, N. Rolston, R. Prasanna, S. Sofia,
D. Harwood, W. Ma, F. Moghadam, H. J. Snaith, T. Buonassisi,
Z. C. Holman, S. F. Bent, M. D. Mcgehee,Nat. Energy2017,2,
17009.
[89] F. E. Subhan, A. D. Khan, A. D. Khan, N. Ullah, M. Imran, M. Noman,
RSC Adv.2020,10, 26631.
[90] J. H. Park, J. Y. Kim,Matter2022,5, 3091.
[91] R. A. Z. Razera, D. A. Jacobs, F. Fu, P. Fiala, M. Dussouillez, F. Sahli,
T. C. J. Yang, L. Ding, A. Walter, A. F. Feil, H. I. Boudinov, S. Nicolay,
C. Ballif, Q. Jeangros,J. Mater. Chem. A2020,8, 242.
[92] S. Wu, R. Chen, S. Zhang, B. H. Babu, Y. Yue, H. Zhu, Z. Yang,
C. Chen, W. Chen, Y. Huang, S. Fang, T. Liu, L. Han, W. Chen,
Nat. Commun.2019,10, 1161.
[93] J. Qian, A. F. Thomson, Y. Wu, K. J. Weber, A. W. Blakers,ACS Appl.
Energy Mater.2018,1, 3025.
[94] D. Bogachuk, K. Saddedine, D. Martineau, S. Narbey, A. Verma,
P. Gebhardt, J. P. Herterich, N. Glissmann, S. Zouhair, J. Markert,
I. E. Gould, M. D. Mcgehee, U. Würfel, A. Hinsch, L. Wagner,Sol.
RRL2022,6, 2100527.
[95] A. R. Bowring, L. Bertoluzzi, B. C. O’regan, M. D. Mcgehee,Adv.
Energy Mater.2018,8, 1702365.
[96] J. Qian, M. Ernst, D. Walter, M. A. Mahmud, P. Hacke, K. Weber,
M. Al-Jassim, A. Blakers,Sustainable Energy Fuels2020,4, 4067.
[97] E. J. Wolf, I. E. Gould, L. B. Bliss, J. J. Berry, M. D. Mcgehee,Sol. RRL
2022,6, 2100239.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (17 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
[98] S. Pingel, O. Frank, M. Winkler, S. Daryan, T. Geipel, H. Hoehne,
J. Berghold, in2010 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ2010, pp. 002817–002822.
[99] M. Schütze, M. Junghänel, M. B. Koentopp, S. Cwikla, S. Friedrich,
J. W. Müller, P. Wawer, in2011 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ2011, pp. 000821–000826.
[100] P. Hacke, R. Smith, K. Terwilliger, G. Perrin, B. Sekulic, S. Kurtz,
Prog. Photovoltaics2014,22, 775.
[101] Z. Xiong, T. M. Walsh, A. G. Aberle,Energy Procedia2011,8, 384.
[102] F. Kersten, F. Fertig, K. Petter, B. Klöter, E. Herzog, M. B. Strobel,
J. Heitmann, J. W. Müller,Energy Procedia2017,124, 540.
[103] W. Luo, Y. S. Khoo, P. Hacke, V. Naumann, D. Lausch, S. P. Harvey,
J. P. Singh, J. Chai, Y. Wang, A. G. Aberle, S. Ramakrishna,Energy
Environ. Sci.2017,10, 43.
[104] S. Yamaguchi, B. B. Van Aken, A. Masuda, K. Ohdaira,Sol. RRL
2021,5, 2100708.
[105] M. Dhimish, A. M. Tyrrell,npj Mater. Degrad.2022,6, 11.
[106] L. Xu, J. Liu, W. Luo, N. Wehbe, A. Seitkhan, M. Babics, J. Kang,
M. De Bastiani, E. Aydin, T. G. Allen, M. Alamer,Cell Rep. Phys.
Sci.2022,3,9.
[107] R. Cheacharoen, N. Rolston, D. Harwood, K. A. Bush,
R. H. Dauskardt, M. D. Mcgehee,Energy Environ. Sci.2018,11, 144.
[108] M. De Bastiani, G. Armaroli, R. Jalmood, L. Ferlauto, X. Li, R. Tao,
G. T. Harrison, M. K. Eswaran, R. Azmi, M. Babics, A. S. Subbiah,
E. Aydin, T. G. Allen, C. Combe, T. Cramer, D. Baran,
U. Schwingenschlögl, G. Lubineau, D. Cavalcoli, S. De Wolf,ACS
Energy Lett.2022,7, 827.
[109] I. Lee, N. Rolston, P.-L. Brunner, R. H. Dauskardt,ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces2019,11, 23757.
[110] F. M. Rombach, S. A. Haque, T. J. Macdonald,Energy Environ. Sci.
2021,14, 5161.
[111] I. M. Peters, C. D. Rodriguez Gallegos, S. E. Sofia, T. Buonassisi,
Joule2019,3, 2732.
[112] I. M. Peters, S. Sofia, J. Mailoa, T. Buonassisi,RSC Adv.2016,6,
66911.
[113] Z. J. Yu, J. V. Carpenter III, Z. C. Holman,Nat. Energy2018,
3, 747.
[114] J. Werner, B. Niesen, C. Ballif,Adv. Mater. Interfaces2018,5,
1700731.
[115] I. M. Peters, J. Hauch, C. Brabec, P. Sinha,Joule2021,5, 3137.
[116] Z. Li, Y. Zhao, X. Wang, Y. Sun, Z. Zhao, Y. Li, H. Zhou, Q. Chen,
Joule2018,2, 1559.
[117] L. A. Zafoschnig, S. Nold, J. C. Goldschmidt,IEEE J. Photovoltaics
2020,10, 1632.
[118] C. Messmer, B. S. Goraya, S. Nold, P. S. C. Schulze, V. Sittinger,
J. Schön, J. C. Goldschmidt, M. Bivour, S. W. Glunz, M. Hermle,
Prog. Photovoltaics2021,29, 744.
[119] N. L. Chang, J. Zheng, Y. Wu, H. Shen, F. Qi, K. Catchpole,
A. Ho-Baillie, R. J. Egan,Prog. Photovoltaics2021,29, 401.
[120] R. Fu, W. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. Zhao, D. Yu, Q. Zhao,ChemNanoMat2019,
5, 253.
[121] L. Duan, L. Hu, X. Guan, C.-H. Lin, D. Chu, S. Huang, X. Liu, J. Yuan,
T. Wu,Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11, 2100354.
[122] S. M. Yoon, H. Min, J. B. Kim, G. Kim, K. S. Lee, S. I. Seok,Joule
2021,5, 183.
[123] Y. Wu, P. Zheng, J. Peng, M. Xu, Y. Chen, S. Surve, T. Lu, A. D. Bui,
N. Li, W. Liang, L. Duan, B. Li, H. Shen, T. Duong, J. Yang, X. Zhang,
Y. Liu, H. Jin, Q. Chen, T. White, K. Catchpole, H. Zhou, K. Weber,
Adv. Energy Mater.2022,12, 2200821.
[124] M. Kaltenbrunner, G. Adam, E. D. Głowacki, M. Drack,
R. Schwödiauer, L. Leonat, D. H. Apaydin, H. Groiss,
M. C. Scharber, M. S. White, N. S. Sariciftci, S. Bauer,Nat.
Mater.2015,14, 1032.
[125] B. Salhi, Y. S. Wudil, M. K. Hossain, A. Al-Ahmed, F. A. Al-Sulaiman,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.2018,90, 210.
[126] Q. Lu, Z. Yang, X. Meng, Y. Yue, M. A. Ahmad, W. Zhang, S. Zhang,
Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, W. Chen,Adv. Funct. Mater.2021,31, 2100151.
[127] J. Li, R. Xia, W. Qi, X. Zhou, J. Cheng, Y. Chen, G. Hou, Y. Ding, Y. Li,
Y. Zhao, X. Zhang,J. Power Sources2021,485, 229313.
[128] K. Xiao, Y.-H. Lin, M. Zhang, R. D. J. Oliver, X. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Luo,
J. Li, D. Lai, H. Luo, R. Lin, J. Xu, Y. Hou, H. J. Snaith, H. Tan,Science
2022,376, 762.
[129] R. Lin, K. Xiao, Z. Qin, Q. Han, C. Zhang, M. Wei, M. I. Saidaminov,
Y. Gao, J. Xu, M. Xiao, A. Li, J. Zhu, E. H. Sargent, H. Tan,Nat. Energy
2019,4, 864.
[130] J. Wen, Y. Zhao, Z. Liu, H. Gao, R. Lin, S. Wan, C. Ji, K. Xiao, Y. Gao,
Y. Tian, J. Xie, C. J. Brabec, H. Tan,Adv. Mater.2022,34, 2110356.
[131] T. Leijtens, R. Prasanna, A. Gold-Parker, M. F. Toney,
M. D. Mcgehee,ACS Energy Lett.2017,2, 2159.
[132] M. Roß, S. Severin, M. B. Stutz, P. Wagner, H. Köbler, M. Favin-
Lévêque, A. Al-Ashouri, P. Korb, P. Tockhorn, A. Abate,
B. Stannowski, B. Rech, S. Albrecht,Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11,
2101460.
[133] E. M. Tennyson, K. Frohna, W. K. Drake, F. Sahli, T. Chien-Jen Yang,
F. Fu, J. Werner, C. Chosy, A. R. Bowman, T. A. S. Doherty,
Q. Jeangros, C. Ballif, S. D. Stranks,ACS Energy Lett.2021,6, 2293.
[134] D. C. Jordan, T. J. Silverman, J. H. Wohlgemuth, S. R. Kurtz,
K. T. Vansant,Prog. Photovoltaics2017,25, 318.
Syed Azkar Ul Hasanreceived his B.S. in mechanical engineering from UET Taxila in 1998, Pakistan, and
his M.S. from AIT, Thailand, in 2007. He served the National Engineering and Scientific Commission
Pakistan for 10 years. He was a research associate for 2 years at the GIK Institute of Sciences and
Engineering, Pakistan. He received his Ph.D. in 2016 from KIMM/UST, Korea, under the supervision of
Prof. Hyuenui Lim. Dr Azkar’s research interests include tactile sensors, perovskite solar cells, OLED,
first-principle calculations, and machine/deep learning. Currently, he is a senior researcher at ICDL
Sungkyunkwan University, Korea.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (18 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
J. Berghold, in2010 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ2010, pp. 002817–002822.
[99] M. Schütze, M. Junghänel, M. B. Koentopp, S. Cwikla, S. Friedrich,
J. W. Müller, P. Wawer, in2011 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ2011, pp. 000821–000826.
[100] P. Hacke, R. Smith, K. Terwilliger, G. Perrin, B. Sekulic, S. Kurtz,
Prog. Photovoltaics2014,22, 775.
[101] Z. Xiong, T. M. Walsh, A. G. Aberle,Energy Procedia2011,8, 384.
[102] F. Kersten, F. Fertig, K. Petter, B. Klöter, E. Herzog, M. B. Strobel,
J. Heitmann, J. W. Müller,Energy Procedia2017,124, 540.
[103] W. Luo, Y. S. Khoo, P. Hacke, V. Naumann, D. Lausch, S. P. Harvey,
J. P. Singh, J. Chai, Y. Wang, A. G. Aberle, S. Ramakrishna,Energy
Environ. Sci.2017,10, 43.
[104] S. Yamaguchi, B. B. Van Aken, A. Masuda, K. Ohdaira,Sol. RRL
2021,5, 2100708.
[105] M. Dhimish, A. M. Tyrrell,npj Mater. Degrad.2022,6, 11.
[106] L. Xu, J. Liu, W. Luo, N. Wehbe, A. Seitkhan, M. Babics, J. Kang,
M. De Bastiani, E. Aydin, T. G. Allen, M. Alamer,Cell Rep. Phys.
Sci.2022,3,9.
[107] R. Cheacharoen, N. Rolston, D. Harwood, K. A. Bush,
R. H. Dauskardt, M. D. Mcgehee,Energy Environ. Sci.2018,11, 144.
[108] M. De Bastiani, G. Armaroli, R. Jalmood, L. Ferlauto, X. Li, R. Tao,
G. T. Harrison, M. K. Eswaran, R. Azmi, M. Babics, A. S. Subbiah,
E. Aydin, T. G. Allen, C. Combe, T. Cramer, D. Baran,
U. Schwingenschlögl, G. Lubineau, D. Cavalcoli, S. De Wolf,ACS
Energy Lett.2022,7, 827.
[109] I. Lee, N. Rolston, P.-L. Brunner, R. H. Dauskardt,ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces2019,11, 23757.
[110] F. M. Rombach, S. A. Haque, T. J. Macdonald,Energy Environ. Sci.
2021,14, 5161.
[111] I. M. Peters, C. D. Rodriguez Gallegos, S. E. Sofia, T. Buonassisi,
Joule2019,3, 2732.
[112] I. M. Peters, S. Sofia, J. Mailoa, T. Buonassisi,RSC Adv.2016,6,
66911.
[113] Z. J. Yu, J. V. Carpenter III, Z. C. Holman,Nat. Energy2018,
3, 747.
[114] J. Werner, B. Niesen, C. Ballif,Adv. Mater. Interfaces2018,5,
1700731.
[115] I. M. Peters, J. Hauch, C. Brabec, P. Sinha,Joule2021,5, 3137.
[116] Z. Li, Y. Zhao, X. Wang, Y. Sun, Z. Zhao, Y. Li, H. Zhou, Q. Chen,
Joule2018,2, 1559.
[117] L. A. Zafoschnig, S. Nold, J. C. Goldschmidt,IEEE J. Photovoltaics
2020,10, 1632.
[118] C. Messmer, B. S. Goraya, S. Nold, P. S. C. Schulze, V. Sittinger,
J. Schön, J. C. Goldschmidt, M. Bivour, S. W. Glunz, M. Hermle,
Prog. Photovoltaics2021,29, 744.
[119] N. L. Chang, J. Zheng, Y. Wu, H. Shen, F. Qi, K. Catchpole,
A. Ho-Baillie, R. J. Egan,Prog. Photovoltaics2021,29, 401.
[120] R. Fu, W. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. Zhao, D. Yu, Q. Zhao,ChemNanoMat2019,
5, 253.
[121] L. Duan, L. Hu, X. Guan, C.-H. Lin, D. Chu, S. Huang, X. Liu, J. Yuan,
T. Wu,Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11, 2100354.
[122] S. M. Yoon, H. Min, J. B. Kim, G. Kim, K. S. Lee, S. I. Seok,Joule
2021,5, 183.
[123] Y. Wu, P. Zheng, J. Peng, M. Xu, Y. Chen, S. Surve, T. Lu, A. D. Bui,
N. Li, W. Liang, L. Duan, B. Li, H. Shen, T. Duong, J. Yang, X. Zhang,
Y. Liu, H. Jin, Q. Chen, T. White, K. Catchpole, H. Zhou, K. Weber,
Adv. Energy Mater.2022,12, 2200821.
[124] M. Kaltenbrunner, G. Adam, E. D. Głowacki, M. Drack,
R. Schwödiauer, L. Leonat, D. H. Apaydin, H. Groiss,
M. C. Scharber, M. S. White, N. S. Sariciftci, S. Bauer,Nat.
Mater.2015,14, 1032.
[125] B. Salhi, Y. S. Wudil, M. K. Hossain, A. Al-Ahmed, F. A. Al-Sulaiman,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.2018,90, 210.
[126] Q. Lu, Z. Yang, X. Meng, Y. Yue, M. A. Ahmad, W. Zhang, S. Zhang,
Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, W. Chen,Adv. Funct. Mater.2021,31, 2100151.
[127] J. Li, R. Xia, W. Qi, X. Zhou, J. Cheng, Y. Chen, G. Hou, Y. Ding, Y. Li,
Y. Zhao, X. Zhang,J. Power Sources2021,485, 229313.
[128] K. Xiao, Y.-H. Lin, M. Zhang, R. D. J. Oliver, X. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Luo,
J. Li, D. Lai, H. Luo, R. Lin, J. Xu, Y. Hou, H. J. Snaith, H. Tan,Science
2022,376, 762.
[129] R. Lin, K. Xiao, Z. Qin, Q. Han, C. Zhang, M. Wei, M. I. Saidaminov,
Y. Gao, J. Xu, M. Xiao, A. Li, J. Zhu, E. H. Sargent, H. Tan,Nat. Energy
2019,4, 864.
[130] J. Wen, Y. Zhao, Z. Liu, H. Gao, R. Lin, S. Wan, C. Ji, K. Xiao, Y. Gao,
Y. Tian, J. Xie, C. J. Brabec, H. Tan,Adv. Mater.2022,34, 2110356.
[131] T. Leijtens, R. Prasanna, A. Gold-Parker, M. F. Toney,
M. D. Mcgehee,ACS Energy Lett.2017,2, 2159.
[132] M. Roß, S. Severin, M. B. Stutz, P. Wagner, H. Köbler, M. Favin-
Lévêque, A. Al-Ashouri, P. Korb, P. Tockhorn, A. Abate,
B. Stannowski, B. Rech, S. Albrecht,Adv. Energy Mater.2021,11,
2101460.
[133] E. M. Tennyson, K. Frohna, W. K. Drake, F. Sahli, T. Chien-Jen Yang,
F. Fu, J. Werner, C. Chosy, A. R. Bowman, T. A. S. Doherty,
Q. Jeangros, C. Ballif, S. D. Stranks,ACS Energy Lett.2021,6, 2293.
[134] D. C. Jordan, T. J. Silverman, J. H. Wohlgemuth, S. R. Kurtz,
K. T. Vansant,Prog. Photovoltaics2017,25, 318.
Syed Azkar Ul Hasanreceived his B.S. in mechanical engineering from UET Taxila in 1998, Pakistan, and
his M.S. from AIT, Thailand, in 2007. He served the National Engineering and Scientific Commission
Pakistan for 10 years. He was a research associate for 2 years at the GIK Institute of Sciences and
Engineering, Pakistan. He received his Ph.D. in 2016 from KIMM/UST, Korea, under the supervision of
Prof. Hyuenui Lim. Dr Azkar’s research interests include tactile sensors, perovskite solar cells, OLED,
first-principle calculations, and machine/deep learning. Currently, he is a senior researcher at ICDL
Sungkyunkwan University, Korea.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (18 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
Muhammad Aleem Zahidreceived his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in electrical engineering from
CASE University Islamabad (UET Taxila), Pakistan, in 2012 and 2016. He is doing his Ph.D. in electrical
engineering from Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Suwon, South Korea. His primary research focuses
on PV module and solar cell technology.
Sangheon Parkearned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in physics from Pusan National University in
2003 and 2005, respectively. After receiving his master’s degree, he worked at LG Electronics for 3 years.
He earned his Ph.D. degree in physics from Sungkyunkwan University in 2017. He is currently serving as
a research professor at the Research Institute for Clean Energy ICT at Sungkyunkwan University. His
primary research focuses on solar cells, perovskite materials, and devices, along with their practical
applications.
Junsin Yireceived a B.S. degree in electronic and electrical engineering from Sungkyunkwan University,
Korea, in 1989. He received an M.S. and a Ph.D. degree in electronic and electrical engineering from the
State University of New York, University at Buffalo, USA, in 1991 and 1994, respectively, He is currently
working as a professor at Sungkyunkwan University, NSC, Suwon. His main research interests include
solar cells, thin-film transistor, and their applications.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (19 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
CASE University Islamabad (UET Taxila), Pakistan, in 2012 and 2016. He is doing his Ph.D. in electrical
engineering from Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Suwon, South Korea. His primary research focuses
on PV module and solar cell technology.
Sangheon Parkearned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in physics from Pusan National University in
2003 and 2005, respectively. After receiving his master’s degree, he worked at LG Electronics for 3 years.
He earned his Ph.D. degree in physics from Sungkyunkwan University in 2017. He is currently serving as
a research professor at the Research Institute for Clean Energy ICT at Sungkyunkwan University. His
primary research focuses on solar cells, perovskite materials, and devices, along with their practical
applications.
Junsin Yireceived a B.S. degree in electronic and electrical engineering from Sungkyunkwan University,
Korea, in 1989. He received an M.S. and a Ph.D. degree in electronic and electrical engineering from the
State University of New York, University at Buffalo, USA, in 1991 and 1994, respectively, He is currently
working as a professor at Sungkyunkwan University, NSC, Suwon. His main research interests include
solar cells, thin-film transistor, and their applications.
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com
Sol. RRL2024,8, 2300967 2300967 (19 of 19) © 2024 Wiley-VCH GmbH
Tags
Categories
TechnologyDownload
Download Slideshow Get the original presentation fileQuick Actions
Statistics
- Views 8
- Slides 19
- Age 42 days
Related Slideshows
11
8-top-ai-courses-for-customer-support-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
53 views
10
7-essential-ai-courses-for-call-center-supervisors-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
49 views
13
25-essential-ai-courses-for-user-support-specialists-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
40 views
11
8-essential-ai-courses-for-insurance-customer-service-representatives-in-2025.pptx
JeroenErne2
39 views
21
Know for Certain
DaveSinNM
24 views
17
PPT OPD LES 3ertt4t4tqqqe23e3e3rq2qq232.pptx
novasedanayoga46
27 views