1. Introduction
The consumption of power and energy is increasing with accelerated commercialization and industrialization[
1]. The continuous utilization of conventional fuels such as natural gas, oils, hydrocarbon gas liquids, fossil fuels and the severe environmental effect for using these materials raises serious concerns about the research of alternate energy resources [
2,
3,
4]. To replace the non-renewable energy resources and to fulfill the increasing energy demand in an environment friendly way, proper utilization of renewable energy sources is badly needed [
5,
6]. Solar energy stands out as a viable renewable energy resource among different potential renewable sources such as wind energy, geothermal energy, hydro power, ocean energy, bioenergy and tidal energy. In recent years, solar cell production is expanding significantly today as the cost of solar cells lowers. However, in order to compete with fossil fuels and transform into a substantial energy source, the expenses of solar cells must be minimized. Considerable initiatives have been taken to create novel cell materials, and recently, a new generation of perovskite solar cells (PSCs) has been established that shows satisfactory performances to go for commercialization. The PSC will most likely have a huge impact on the future solar cell industry due to the low cost of raw materials and the simple manufacturing method, and this kind of cell may also be competitive with natural gas [
7].
The solar research field have been recently captured by organic-inorganic PSCs due to having exceptional and excellent properties such as high absorptivity, low atomic energy, improved dielectric constant, favorable deposition by solution processing technique, high electron mobility, high hole mobility, suitable with low manufacturing cost and low-temperature deposition than conventional silicon-based solar cells [
8,
9]. The efficiency and stability of perovskites solar cells show tremendous improvement such as in just 10 years perovskite solar cells developed from unstable 3% efficiency to stable 32% efficiency [
10] and this improvement shows the potentiality of perovskite solar cells for which these solar cells have raised as strong competitor in the photovoltaic industry [
11,
12,
13].
Thin-film PSC technology has improved due to the ease fabrication, energy gap adjustability, and the photon conversion efficiency (PCE) above 30% of lead (Pb)-compounded organic inorganic halide PSCs [
14]. Although these achievements, the existence of emerging contaminants (Pb) that causes toxicity is the fundamental issues in the applications of lead-based PSCs and this problem is still a significant barrier to commercialization of PSCs [
15]. Additionally, the perovskite layer's organic components contribute to the solar cell's instability. Similarly, the presence of organic elements in the perovskite layer causes instability of the solar cell. Therefore, lead based organic halide perovskite solar cells are not suitable and preferable for industrial application and commercialization. To eliminate the toxicity researchers have carried out experiments to develop lead-free perovskite material and to minimize instability utilizing inorganic materials have gathered attractive attention which can replace organic materials [
16,
17,
18]. Ahmad et al. simulated a Cs
3Bi
2I
9 based 2D PSC device where they employed TiO
2 as ETL material and Spiro-MeOTAD as HTL material with gold as back contact[
19]. Their simulation results revealed that their PSC device could gain an efficiency of 11.54% and their experimental results showed 1.66% efficiency for the similar configuration. Researchers are also working for stabilizing experimented PSC devices against several influencing natural factors such as moisture, temperature and dust. Hamukwaya et al.[
20] experimented to investigate the performance after adding KI as additive with Cs
3Bi
2I
9 perovskite layer. This mixing of KI caused the highest efficiency as 2.81% the Cs₃Bi₂I₉ perovskite layer highly stabilizes the resultant PSC device against humidity to the extent that it maintains 98% of the initial PCE after 90 days, which is suitable for solar cell applications.
Homo-valent component such as Ge
2+ and Sn
2+ can be a potential choice which can eliminate toxicity; however, these components decrease the stability of PSCs when it performs at ambient temperature [
21,
22,
23]. For alternation of such materials different hetero-valent materials are tested in lab-based experiments to investigate their suitability and stability for using in perovskite layers and among those materials Bi
3+ and Sb
3+ which have stable +3 oxidation phase have gathered much attention[
24]. Bi
3+ have good optoelectronic properties as Pb
2+ due to ionic radius and electronic structure similarities of these materials. Among different Bi halide-based materials Cs
2Bi
2I
9 achieved the greatest interest due to its higher PCE and more stability than other Bi based perovskite materials [
25,
26]. Summary of different works on the PSC performance analysis are listed in
Table 1.
Cs
3Bi
2I
9 is a hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite material that has gained attention in the field of photovoltaics as a potential absorber layer in solar cells. This material has a range of advantages that make it an attractive candidate for this application. One of the significant advantages of Cs
3Bi
2I
9 is its high absorption coefficient. This characteristic enables it to absorb light effectively across a broad range of the solar spectrum, which is essential for the efficient operation of solar cells. The high absorption coefficient of Cs
3Bi
2I
9 is comparable to other well-known perovskite absorbers like MAPbI
3 (methylammonium lead iodide). Another advantage of Cs
3Bi
2I
9 is its high stability. Many perovskite materials are known to be unstable under ambient conditions, which can limit their practical applications. However, Cs3Bi2I9 has been shown to be highly stable under various environmental conditions, including humidity, light, and heat. This stability makes it an attractive option for use in real-world applications where stability is crucial. Cs
3Bi
2I
9 also has high carrier mobility, which is a desirable property for efficient charge transport and collection in photovoltaic devices. Furthermore, this material has a direct bandgap, which is crucial for efficient light absorption and conversion into electrical energy in photovoltaic devices[
24].
In this study, the simulation has been carried out in two steps, where the first step consists of comparison of suitable ETL and HTL materials with Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer to find out the best configuration for which higher performance has been observed. In second step, the selected model has been optimized for improving its performance parameters such as Jsc, Voc, PCE and FF. To achieve the optimized system, around 45 models with different ETL and HTL materials have been performed. In this process, a best performance for ITO/WS2/Cs3Bi2I9/NiO/Au has been attained. For further improvement of this configuration, optimization of various adjustable attributes such as thickness and bandgap of absorber layer, defect density of absorber layer and charge carrier density of HTL and ETL materials has been done. After tuning input attributes, 20.96% of PCE has been obtained for this model.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the modeling and performance analysis was done for the Cs3Bi2I9 based PSC using SCAPS-1D. The lead-free Cs3Bi2I9 was used as the absorber layer and the selection of this layer was based on the better stability and non-toxicity of this material. WS2, PCBM, C60, TiO2, IGZO were used as the ETL material and Cu2O, CuSCN, CuSbS2, P3HT, PEDOT:PSS, Spiro-OMeTAD, NiO, CuI, CuO was used as the HTL material. Total of 45 different PSC models were simulated with the combination of these HTL and ETL with the Cs3Bi2I9 based absorber layer. In addition, Au was taken as the back contact material. After the numerical simulation of these models, the combination of WS2-Cs3Bi2I9-NiO was found to give the maximum PCE of 20.25%. This combination is the novel model in which WS2 is used as ETL with Cs3Bi2I9 perovskite layer. In order to enhance the performance parameters (VOC, Jsc, FF, PCE) of the PSC and to achieve the maximum PCE, this model was scrutinized by varying the parameters like absorber layer thickness, band gap, defect density and carrier density of the ETL and HTL. The thickness of absorber layer was found to be 400 nm as optimum as PCE was maximum 20.59% at 400 nm. Thin absorber layer was found to give the good efficiency for the perovskite model. There was a significant change in the performance with the variation of absorber layer band gap. For the band gap of 2.1 eV, the PCE was the highest among others. There was found a significant increase in PCE from 20.59% to 20.9% for this bandgap. Though, the defect density has a major impact on the effectiveness of the PSCs, there was observed no such changes in the maximum efficiency with the variation of defect density. The maximum efficiency of 20.9% was found at the absorber layer dopant density of 1012 cm-3. There was a gradual increase in the performance parameters with the variation in carrier density. The maximum of 20.96 % PCE was obtained with the ETL donor density of 1018 cm-3 which was the best we found in our numerical analysis. Since, higher the ND makes the extraction of the charge easier to the ETL/ perovskite layer. The optimum acceptor density of HTL was found to be 1020 cm-3 and here also the maximum PCE was found to be 20.96%. Finally, after the full optimization the PSC attained a PCE of 20.96% which was initially found to be 20.25%.
Figure 1.
Model of a perovskite-based solar cell with different layers.
Figure 1.
Model of a perovskite-based solar cell with different layers.
Figure 2.
Energy band diagram for the selected configuration in this study.
Figure 2.
Energy band diagram for the selected configuration in this study.
Figure 3.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with PCBM ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 3.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with PCBM ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 4.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with WS2 ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 4.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with WS2 ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 5.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with IGZO ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 5.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with IGZO ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 6.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with C60 ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 6.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with C60 ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 7.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with TiO2 ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 7.
Performance parameters for different HTLs with TiO2 ETL and Cs3Bi2I9 absorber layer.
Figure 8.
Effect of absorber layer thickness on PSC device' performance parameters (i). (Jsc, Voc), and (ii) (FF, PCE).
Figure 8.
Effect of absorber layer thickness on PSC device' performance parameters (i). (Jsc, Voc), and (ii) (FF, PCE).
Figure 9.
Effect of absorber layer bandgap on (i) Jsc, Voc, and (ii) FF, PCE.
Figure 9.
Effect of absorber layer bandgap on (i) Jsc, Voc, and (ii) FF, PCE.
Figure 10.
Effect of absorber layer defect density on (i) Jsc, Voc, and (ii) FF, PCE.
Figure 10.
Effect of absorber layer defect density on (i) Jsc, Voc, and (ii) FF, PCE.
Figure 11.
Effect of donor density of ETL (WS2) on (i) Jsc, Voc, and (ii) FF, PCE.
Figure 11.
Effect of donor density of ETL (WS2) on (i) Jsc, Voc, and (ii) FF, PCE.
Figure 13.
Comparison of J-V characteristic curve of initial and final optimized model.
Figure 13.
Comparison of J-V characteristic curve of initial and final optimized model.
Figure 14.
Comparison of capacitance of initial and final optimized model as a function of wavelength.
Figure 14.
Comparison of capacitance of initial and final optimized model as a function of wavelength.
Table 1.
Literature review on recent experimental perovskite-based solar cells performance.
Table 1.
Literature review on recent experimental perovskite-based solar cells performance.
Device structure |
Year |
PCE(%) |
VOC(V) |
JSC(mA/cm2) |
FF(%) |
Ref |
Au/spiro-OMeTAD/ FTO/TiO2 |
2022 |
12.54 |
1.32 |
13.13 |
72.01 |
[27] |
HTL/back contact /MAPbBr3/SnO2/ FTO |
2021 |
25.40 |
1.19 |
25.09 |
84 |
[28] |
Ag/BCP/PCBM/(Cs0.05(FA5/MAI) 0.95Pb(I0.9Br0.1)3)/PTAA/TTO/Glass |
2021 |
23 |
1.16 |
24 |
82 |
[29] |
Cu/BCP/ITUC60/Cs0.05(FA0.92MA0.08)0.95Pb(I0.92Br0.08)3/ PTAA/ITO |
2020 |
22.30 |
1.71 |
24.10 |
81 |
[30] |
Au/ Spiro-OMeTAD/CsSn0.5Ge0.5I3/PCBM/FTO |
2019 |
7.11 |
0.63 |
18.61 |
60.6 |
[31] |
ITO/NiOx/FASnI3/PCBM/Ag |
2018 |
6.70 |
0.60 |
17.53 |
65 |
[32] |
Ag/PCBM/MASn0.6Pb0.4I3-xBrx/PEDOT:PSS/ITO |
2017 |
12.10 |
0.78 |
20.65 |
75 |
[33] |
Au/Spiro-OMeTAD/Cs0.16FA0.84Pb(I0.88Br0.12)3/SnO2/FTO |
2016 |
18 |
1.02 |
22.40 |
78 |
[34] |
Ag/BCP/PCBM/0.15 mol% Al3+-dopedCH3NH3PbI3/ Poly-TPD/FTO |
2016 |
19.10 |
1.01 |
22.40 |
78 |
[35] |
Au/spiro-OMeTAD /MASnI3/ ZnO/ITO |
2015 |
7.66 |
0.97 |
11.10 |
66 |
[36] |
Au/SpiroOMeTAD + LiTFSI + tBP /MASnI3/ m-TiO2/ TiO2
|
2014 |
6.40 |
0.88 |
16.80 |
42 |
[37] |
Table 2.
Input attributes for perovskite material, different electron transport layer (ETL) materials and ITO.
Table 2.
Input attributes for perovskite material, different electron transport layer (ETL) materials and ITO.
Parameter |
Cs3Bi2I9 [48] |
PCBM[49,50] |
TiO2 [51,52,53] |
WS2 [54] |
IGZO [49] |
C60 [55] |
ITO [56] |
Electron affinity, X (eV) |
3.40 |
3.90 |
4.26 |
3.95 |
4 |
3.90 |
4.1 |
Relative permittivity () |
9.68 |
4 |
100 |
13.60 |
9 |
4.20 |
10 |
Thickness(nm) |
1000 |
30 |
30 |
100 |
30 |
50 |
60 |
Bandgap, Eg (eV) |
2.1 |
2 |
3.20 |
1.80 |
3.50 |
1.70 |
3.6 |
State density of conduction band, NC (1/cm3) |
4.98×1019
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
State density of valence band, NV (1/cm3) |
2.11×1019
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
AL defect density, Nt (1/cm3) |
1014
|
|
|
1015
|
|
|
- |
Mobility of electron, (cm2/Vs) |
107
|
|
|
100 |
15 |
|
107
|
Mobility of hole, (cm2/Vs) |
107
|
|
|
100 |
0.20 |
|
107
|
AD, NA(1/cm3) |
1019
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
DD, ND(1/cm3) |
1019
|
|
|
1018
|
|
|
1019
|
Table 3.
Input attributes for different hole transport layer (HTL) materials.
Table 3.
Input attributes for different hole transport layer (HTL) materials.
Parameter |
NiO [50] |
CuO [57] |
Cu2O [58] |
PEDOT [59] |
P3HT [58] |
CuSCN [58] |
CuI [60,61,62,63] |
Spiro-OMeTAD [64] |
CuSbS2 [65,66,67] |
Relative permittivity () |
11.75 |
18.1 |
7.1 |
3 |
3 |
10 |
6.5 |
3 |
14.6 |
Bandgap, Eg(eV) |
3.6 |
31.5 |
2.17 |
3.6 |
1.7 |
3.4 |
2.98 |
2.9 |
1.58 |
Electron affinity, X(eV) |
2.1 |
4.07 |
3.2 |
1.57 |
3.5 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
4.2 |
Thickness(nm) |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
350 |
50 |
AL defect density, Nt (1/cm3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State density of conduction band, NC (1/cm3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State density of valence band, NV (1/cm3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mobility of electron, (cm2/Vs) |
|
100 |
200 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
49 |
Mobility of hole, (cm2/Vs) |
|
0.1 |
8600 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
49 |
AD, NA(1/cm3) |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
DD, ND(1/cm3) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Table 4.
Optimized input attributes for the selected configuration in this study.
Table 4.
Optimized input attributes for the selected configuration in this study.
Parameters |
ITO |
WS2
|
Cs3Bi2I9
|
NiO |
Electron affinity (eV) |
4.1 |
3.95 |
3.4 |
2.1 |
Bandgap (eV) |
3.6 |
1.8 |
2.10 |
3.6 |
Thickness (nm) |
60 |
100 |
400 |
150 |
Dielectric permittivity (relative) |
10 |
13.6 |
9.68 |
11.75 |
Thermal velocity of hole (cm/s) |
107
|
107
|
107
|
107
|
Mobility of electron (cm2/Vs) |
50 |
100 |
4.3 |
10-3
|
CB effective density of states (cm-3) |
2.21018
|
21018
|
4.981019
|
|
VB effective density of states (cm-3) |
1.81019
|
21018
|
2.111019
|
|
Thermal velocity of electron (cm/s) |
107
|
2105
|
107
|
107
|
Mobility of hole (cm2/Vs) |
75 |
100 |
1.7 |
10-3
|
Shallow uniform DD, ND (cm-3) |
1019
|
1018 |
1019
|
- |
Shallow uniform AD, NA (cm-3) |
- |
- |
1019
|
|
Defect density of AL, Nt (cm-3) |
- |
1013
|
1012 |
|
Table 5.
Comparison of different established model with the present model in this study.
Table 5.
Comparison of different established model with the present model in this study.
Models |
Methods |
VOC(V) |
JSC(mA/cm2) |
FF(%) |
PCE(%) |
Ref |
FTO/TiO2/Cs3Sb2I9/spiro-OMeTAD/Au |
Simulation |
1.32 |
13.13 |
72.01 |
12.54 |
[27] |
CZTSe/MAPbI3/Cd1-xZnxS/FTO |
Simulation |
1.12 |
26.45 |
88.90 |
27.13 |
[78] |
PTAA/MAPbI3/TiO2
|
Experimental |
1.11 |
19.58 |
76 |
16.46 |
[79] |
Spiro − OMeTAD/MAPbI3/TiO2
|
Simulation |
1.27 |
21.87 |
79.58 |
22.13 |
[80] |
Spiro − OMeTAD/MAPbI3/TiO2
|
Experimental |
1.09 |
23.83 |
76.2 |
19.71 |
[81] |
CuI /MAPbI3/TiO2
|
Simulation |
1.27 |
21.89 |
83.12 |
23.14 |
[80] |
CuI /MAPbI3/TiO2
|
Experimental |
0.55 |
17.8 |
62 |
6 |
[82] |
NiOx/MAPbI3/PCBM : C60/Zr |
Experimental |
1.08 |
23.47 |
79.4 |
20.13 |
[83] |
FTO/TiO2/Cs3Bi2I9/spiro-MeOTAD/Au |
Simulation |
1.03 |
21.02 |
73.4 |
11.14 |
[84] |
FTO/TiO2/Cs3Bi2I9/NiO |
Simulation |
0.92 |
22.07 |
68.21 |
13.82 |
[84] |
ITO/WS2/Cs3Bi2I9 /NiO/Au |
Simulation |
1.438 |
16.366 |
89.03 |
20.96 |
[Present work] |