Analyzing ecofriendly perovskite solar cells

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 10 Issue: 12 | Dec 2023 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2023, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.226 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 489
Analyzing ecofriendly perovskite solar cells
1Mohit Dhanik
1
UG Student of Department of Physics, Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun 248002,Uttarakhand ,India
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - This research paper presents an analysis of
highly efficient eco-friendly perovskite solar cells using the
SCAPS 1D simulator. Perovskite solar cells(PSCs) have gained
a lot of attention as an alternative to conventional silicon –
based solar cells due to their high power conversion efficiency
(PCE) and low cost fabrication.The study investigates the
impact of different –different hole transport layers(HTL) and
electron transport layers(ETL) on the performance of the
perovskitesolarcell.Andfinding which(HTL/CH3NH3SnI3/ETL)
combination would be best.The graphs for capacitance-
voltage, current density voltage, fill factor and quantum
efficiencies are also evaluated. Furthermore,we have used
Cu2O,Spiro-MeOTAD and CuO as our best HTL and ZnO , TiO2
and WS2 as our best ETL.The simulation results show that
optimizing these parameters can significantly enhance the
device efficiency .The study also highlights the potential of
perovskite solar cells to be an efficient and cost –effective
solution for renewable energy generation.
Key Words: Solar cells - electron transport layer – hole
transport layer-SCAPS 1D-PCE
1.INTRODUCTION
The world's energy needs have been increasing day by day.
The depletion of energy sources and fossil fuels, natural gas,
coal, etc. have a negative impact on our societies and the
environment [1]. Therefore, the development of alternative
energy resources and sustainable energy sources
considering economic and environmental aspects is the
focus of research worldwide [1]. Perovskite materials are
widely used in photovoltaic devices such as solar cells and
light-emitting diodes (LEDs) [2]. The energy conversion
efficiency of PSCs has improved rapidly in recent years.
Lead-based metal halide perovskites have revolutionized
photovoltaics in recent years, dramatically increasing the
efficiency from 3.8% in 2009 to 25.7% in 2022 [3].But those
perovskite are mostly lead based and the use of toxic
materials and organic cationsinPSCspresentschallenges for
commercial applications.
In this work, we analyze the solar cellswiththehelp
of SCAPS software. There are five layers consisting of
ITO/ETL/ CH3NH3SnI3 /HTL/Au. ZnO, TiO2and WS2 was used
as electron transporting layer (ETL) and Cu2O, Spiro-MeOTAD
and CuO was used as hole transport layer (HTL).ITO and Au
are used as they are best suitable[4]. These layers have the
advantages of being eco friendly and highly efficient. We
analysed the performance of theETL andHTL layer. Wehave
also shown the influence of absorber and ETL thickness ,
working temperature, and current-voltage density (J-V)
characteristics. We also demonstrated the effect of the layer
thickness on PCE and J-Vand I-V characteristics of
CH3NH3SnI3.
2. Device structure and simulation
SCAPS 1D software[5] [6][7][8]solves the poisson
equation(a) ,continuity equation of electron(b)andholes(c).
[9]
where, G, τn, τp, D, q, Ψ, μn, μp, n (x), p (x), nt (x), pt (x), N−A
(x) , N+D (x) and ξ denote the generation rate, electron
lifespan, diffusion coefficient, electron charge, electrostatic
potential, electron mobility, hole mobility, free electrons
concentration, free holes concentration, trapped electrons
concentration, trappedholesconcentration,ionizedacceptor
concentrations, ionized donor concentrations and electric
field.[9]
Table 1 :Input parameters of the ITOs, ETLs and absorber
layer
Parameters ITO TiO2 ZnO WS2 CH3NH3SnI3
Thickness(nm) 500 30 50 100 500
Band gap,Eg(eV) 3.5 3.2 3.3 1.8 1.3
Electron affinity,(eV) 4 4 4 3.95 4.170
Dielectric
permittivity(relative),
9 9 9 13.6 6.5
CB effective density
of states,Nc(1/cm3)
2.20E+18 2.0E+18 3.7E+18 1.0E+18 2.2E+19
VB effective density
of states,Nv(1/cm3)
1.8E+19 1.8E+19 1.8E+19 2.4E+19 2.2E+19
Electron
mobility,(cm2/Vs)
20 20 100 100 1.6
Hole
mobility,(cm2/Vs)
10 10 25 100 1.6
Shallow uniform
acceptor
density,NA(1/cm3)
-------- --------- ---------- ---------- 3.2E+15
Defects
density,Nt(1/cm3)
1.0E+15 1.0E+15 1.0E+15 1.0E+15 1.0E+13
References [4][10][11][12] [13][10][4] [8][14][4] [10][15][4] [16]

Table 2: Input parameters of the HTLs
Parameters Cu2O Spiro-MeOTAD CuO
Thickness(nm) 50 200 50
Band gap,Eg(eV) 2.2 3 1.51
Electron affinity,(eV) 3.4 2.2 4.07
Dielectric permittivity(relative), 7.5 3 18.1
CB effective density of states,Nc(1/cm3) 2.0E+19 2.2E+18 2.2E+19
VB effective density of states,Nv(1/cm3) 1.0E+19 1.8E+19 5.5E+20
Electron mobility,(cm2/Vs) 200 2.1E-3 100
Hole mobility,(cm2/Vs) 8600 2.16E-3 0.1
Shallow uniform acceptor
density,NA(1/cm3)
1.0E+18 1.0E+18 1.0E+18
Shallow uniform donor density,ND(1/cm3) ------- ---------- ---------
Defects density,Nt(1/cm3) 1.0E+15 1.0E+15 1.0E+15
References [13][4] [4][8] [4]
Interface Defect type Capture cross-
section:electrons
/holes(cm3)
Energetic
Distribution
Reference for
defect energy
level
Total density (cm-2)
ETL/
CH3NH3S
nI3
Neutral 1.000E-15[17]
1.000E-15
Single Above the EV
maximum
1.000E+15[17]
CH3NH3S
nI3/HTL
Neutral 1.000E-15[12]
1.000E-15
Single Above the EV
maximum
1.000E+15[12]
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 3: Results of solar cells with different –different
HTL layers
Optimized device Voc(V) Jsc(mA/cm2) FF(%) PCE(%)
TiO2/ CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O 1.0091 31.642 81.20 25.93
ZnO / CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O 1.0098 31.881 81.23 26.15
WS2/ CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O 0.98 19.13 81.23 15.30
Table 4: Results of solar cells with different-different ETL
layers
Optimized device Voc(V) Jsc(mA/cm2) FF(%) PCE(%)
ZnO/ CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O 1.01 32.53 81.22 26.70
ZnO/ CH3NH3SnI3/ Spiro-
MeOTAD
0.88 32.45 71.98 20.68
ZnO/ CH3NH3SnI3/ CuO 0.98 33.41 83.13 27.28
3.1 Discussions
3.1.1. Effect of thickness –
FOR HTL:
0 2 4 6 8 10
25.9
26.0
26.1
26.2
26.3
26.4
26.5
26.6
26.7
eta(%)
TiO2
thickness(um)
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10
1.0090
1.0092
1.0094
1.0096
1.0098
1.0100
1.0102
1.0104
1.0106
1.0108
V
oc
(V)
TiO2
thickness(um)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
31.6
31.8
32.0
32.2
32.4
32.6
J
sc
(mA/cm
2
)
TiO2
thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
81.200
81.205
81.210
81.215
81.220
81.225
81.230
FF(%)
TiO2
thickness(um)
(d)
Fig.1 Dependence of layer thickness of TiO2 on PCE (%),
Voc(V), Jsc(mA/cm2), FF (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
eta(%)
WS2
thickness(um)
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.985
0.990
0.995
1.000
1.005
1.010
1.015
V
OC
(V)
WS2
thickness(um)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
J
sc
(mA/cm
2
)
WS2
thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
81.200
81.205
81.210
81.215
81.220
81.225
81.230
81.235
81.240
FF(%)
WS2
thickness(um)
(d)
Fig.2 Dependence of layer thickness of WS2 on PCE (%),
0 2 4 6 8 10
26.1
26.2
26.3
26.4
26.5
26.6
26.7
eta(%)
ZnO thickness(um)
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10
1.0098
1.0100
1.0102
1.0104
1.0106
1.0108
V
OC
(V)
ZnO thickness(um)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
31.8
31.9
32.0
32.1
32.2
32.3
32.4
32.5
J
SC
(mA/cm
2
)
ZnO thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
81.2260
81.2265
81.2270
81.2275
81.2280
81.2285
81.2290
81.2295
81.2300
81.2305
FF(%)
ZnO thickness(um)
(d)
Fig.3 Dependence of layer thickness of ZnO on PCE (%),
Voc (V), Jsc(mA/cm2), FF (%)

FOR ETL:
0 2 4 6 8 10
26.64
26.65
26.66
26.67
26.68
26.69
26.70
26.71
eta(%)
Cu2
0 thickness(um)
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10
32.45
32.46
32.47
32.48
32.49
32.50
32.51
32.52
32.53
32.54
J
SC
(mA/cm
2
)
Cu2
0 thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
1.01054
1.01056
1.01058
1.01060
1.01062
1.01064
V
0C
(V)
Cu2
0 thickness(um)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
81.2222
81.2224
81.2226
81.2228
81.2230
81.2232
81.2234
81.2236
81.2238
81.2240
FF(%)
Cu2
0 thickness(um)
(d)
Fig.4 Dependence of layer thickness of Cu2Oon PCE (%),
0 2 4 6 8 10
21.0
21.5
22.0
22.5
23.0
23.5
eta(%)
Spiro-MeOTAD thickness(um)
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10
32.4562
32.4564
32.4566
32.4568
32.4570
32.4572
32.4574
32.4576
J
sc
(mA/cm
2
) Spiro-MeOTAD thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.88498
0.88500
0.88502
0.88504
0.88506
0.88508
0.88510
V
0C
(V)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
72
74
76
78
80
82
FF(%)
(d)
Fig.5 Dependence of layer thickness of Spiro-MeOTADon
PCE (%), Voc (V), Jsc (mA/cm2), FF (%)

0 2 4 6 8 10
25.6
25.8
26.0
26.2
26.4
26.6
26.8
27.0
27.2
27.4
eta(%)
CuO thickness(um)
(a)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
V
OC
(V)
CuO thickness(um)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
32.4
32.6
32.8
33.0
33.2
33.4
J
sc
(mA/cm
2
)
CuO thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
83.0
83.5
84.0
84.5
85.0
85.5
86.0
FF(%)
CuO thickness(um)
(d)
Fig.6 Dependence of layer thickness of CuO on PCE(%),
Voc(V), Jsc(mA/cm2), FF(%)
FOR PEROVSKITE LAYER(CH3NH3SnI3):
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
eta(%)
CH3
NH3
SnI3
thickness(um)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
V
OC
(V)
CH3
NH3
SnI3
thickness(um)
(b)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
J
SC
(mA/cm
2
)
CH3
NH3
SnI3
thickness(um)
(c)
0 2 4 6 8 10
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
FF(%)
CH3
NH3
SnI3
thickness(um)
(d)
Fig.7 Dependence of layer thickness of CH3NH3SnI3 on
PCE(%), Voc(V), Jsc(mA/cm2), FF(%)

2-EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE
300 400 500 600 700
5
10
15
20
25
30
eta(%)
T(K)
(a)
300 400 500 600 700
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
V
OC
(V)
T(K)
(b)
300 400 500 600 700
32.465
32.470
32.475
32.480
32.485
32.490
32.495
32.500
J
SC
mA/cm
2
)
T(K)
(c)
300 400 500 600 700
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
FF(%)
T(K)
(d)
Fig.8 Effect of temperature on PCE(%), Voc(V),
Jsc(mA/cm2), FF(%) of TiO2(variable) CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O ;
ZnO(variable) / CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O ; WS2(variable)/
CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O ; ZnO/ CH3NH3SnI3/ Cu2O(variable)
300 400 500 600 700
5
10
15
20
25
30
eta(%)
T(K)
(a)
300 400 500 600 700
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
FF(%)
T(K)
(d)
300 400 500 600 700
32.455
32.460
32.465
32.470
32.475
32.480
32.485
J
SC
(mA/cm
2
)
T(K)
(c)
300 400 500 600 700
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
V
OC
(V)
T(K)
(b)
Fig.9 Effect of temperature on PCE(%), Voc(V),
Jsc(mA/cm2), FF(%) of ZnO/ CH3NH3SnI3/ Spiro-MeOTAD

300 400 500 600 700
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
eta(%)
T(K)
(a)
300 400 500 600 700
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
V
OC
(V)
T(K)
(b)
300 400 500 600 700
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
FF(%)
T(K)
(d)
300 400 500 600 700
32.35
32.40
32.45
32.50
32.55
32.60
32.65
J
SC
(mA/cm
2
)
T(K)
(c)
Fig.10 Effect of temperature on PCE (%), Voc(V),
Jsc(mA/cm2), FF(%) of ZnO/ CH3NH3SnI3/ CuO
Table 5: Comparison between different perovskite
parameters with the current study.
ETL HTL Perovskite
layer
JSC(mA/cm2) VOC(V) FF(%) eta(%) Ref
Zn2SnO4 Spiro-
OMeTAD
CH3NH3SnI3 32.30 1.185 64 24.3 [18]
TiO2 CuO2 MAPbI2Br 31.4 0.89 76.7 22 [19]
TiO2 Spiro-
OMeTAD
CH3NH3SnI3 32.76 0.82 74 20.08 [18]
TiO2 CBTS CsPbI3 21.07 0.997 85.21 17.90 [4]
TiO2 CuO2 CH3NH3SnI3 34 0.99 71.30 24.54 [16]
ZnO CuO CH3NH3SnI3 33.41 0.98 83.13 27.28 This work
3. CONCLUSIONS
This study analyses environment friendly perovskite solar
cells by focusing on their efficiency. Different – different HTL
and ETL has been successfully analyzed with the help of
SCAPS 1D. As per the findings, ZnO as HTL and CuO as ETL
are best suitable for non-lead based perovskite solar cells.
The influence of different HTLs and ETLs thickness on PCE
(eta),VOC,JSC and FF was studied, similarly influence of
temperature is also studied with the help of SCAPS 1D.
SCAPS 1D software gives us a fair results about the
thickness and temperature of different layers of solar cells
to get more efficient perovskite solar cell.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Khalid Hossain et al., “Combined DFT, SCAPS-1D, and
wxAMPS frameworksfordesignoptimizationofefficient
Cs2BiAgI6-based perovskite solar cells with different
charge transport layers.” [Online]. Available:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4595-6367
[2] A. K. Mishra and R. K. Shukla, “Effect of humidity in the
perovskite solar cell,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 29, no.
July, pp. 836–838, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.872.
[3] F. Ji, G. Boschloo, F. Wang, and F. Gao, “Challenges and
Progress in Lead-Free Halide Double Perovskite Solar
Cells,” Sol. RRL, vol. 2201112, 2023, doi:
10.1002/solr.202201112.
[4] M. Khalid Hossain et al., “Effect of various electron and
hole transport layers on the performance of CsPbI 3-
based perovskite solar cells: A numerical investigation
in DFT, SCAPS-1D, and wxAMPS frameworks.”
[5] M. Burgelman, P. Nollet, and S. Degrave, “Modelling
polycrystalline semiconductor solar cells,” Thin Solid
Films, vol. 361, pp. 527–532, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0040-
6090(99)00825-1.
[6] A. Niemegeers and M. Burgelman, “MODELLING OF ac-

CHARACTERISTICS SOLAR CELLS,” IEEE Photovoltaics
Spec. Conf., no. april, pp. 901–904, 1996.
[7] J. Verschraegen andM.Burgelman,“Numerical modeling
of intra-band tunneling for heterojunction solar cells in
scaps,” Thin Solid Films, vol. 515, no. 15 SPEC. ISS., pp.
6276–6279, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.tsf.2006.12.049.
[8] M. Burgelman, K. Decock, S. Kheli,andA.Abass,“Author’
s personal copy Advanced electrical simulation of thinfi
lm solar cells,” Thin Solid Films, vol. 535, pp. 296–301,
2013.
[9] P. K. Patel, “Device simulation of highly efficient eco-
friendly CH3NH3SnI3perovskitesolarcell,” Sci. Rep.,vol.
11, no. 1,Dec.2021,doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82817-w.
[10] S. Abdelaziz, A. Zekry, A. Shaker, and M. Abouelatta,
“Investigating the performance of formamidinium tin-
based perovskite solar cell by SCAPS devicesimulation,”
Opt. Mater. (Amst)., vol. 101, no. February, p. 109738,
2020, doi: 10.1016/j.optmat.2020.109738.
[11] F. Anwar, S. Afrin, S. S. Satter, R. Mahbub, and S. M. Ullah,
“Simulation and performance study of nanowire
CdS/CdTe solar cell,” Int. J. Renew. Energy Res., vol. 7,no.
2, pp. 885–893, 2017, doi:
10.20508/ijrer.v7i2.5688.g7068.
[12] M. A. Moon, H. Ali, and F. Rahman, “Investigation ofthin-
fi lm p -BaSi 2 / n -CdS heterostructure towards
semiconducting silicide based high ef fi ciency solar
cell,” 2020.
[13] S. Kazim, “IKERBASQUE, BasqueFoundationforScience,
Bilbao, 48013, Spain. 3,” vol. 2.
[14] I. Chabri, A. Oubelkacem, and Y. Benhouria, “Numerical
developmentoflead-freeCs2TiI6-basedperovskitesolar
cell via SCAPS-1D,” E3S Web Conf., vol. 336, pp. 1–8,
2022, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202233600050.
[15] K. Sobayel et al., “A comprehensive defect study of
tungsten disulfide (WS2) as electron transport layer in
perovskite solar cells by numerical simulation,” Results
Phys., vol. 12, no. March, pp. 1097–1103, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.rinp.2018.12.049.
[16] M. A. Salih, M. A. Mustafa, and B. A. A. Yousef,
“Developing Lead-Free Perovskite-Based Solar Cells
with Planar Structure in Confined Mode Arrangement
Using SCAPS-1D,” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 2, Jan. 2023, doi:
10.3390/su15021607.
[17] A. B. Coulibaly, S. O. Oyedele, N. R. Kre, and B. Aka,
“Comparative Study of Lead-Free Perovskite Solar Cells
Using Different Hole Transporter Materials,” Model.
Numer. Simul. Mater. Sci., vol. 09, no. 04, pp. 97–107,
2019, doi: 10.4236/mnsms.2019.94006.
[18] R. Tala-Ighil Zaïr, C. Oudjehani, and K. Tighilt, “SCAPS
Simulation for Perovskite Solar Cell,” J. Sol. Energy Res.
Updat., vol. 8, pp. 21–26, 2021, doi: 10.31875/2410-
2199.2021.08.3.
[19] S. Sajid, S. Alzahmi, I. Ben Salem, and I. M. Obaidat,
“Guidelines for Fabricating Highly Efficient Perovskite
Solar Cells with Cu2O as the Hole Transport Material,”
Nanomaterials, vol. 12, no. 19, 2022, doi:
10.3390/nano12193315.

Analyzing ecofriendly perovskite solar cells

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Analyzing ecofriendly perovskite solar cells

Similar to Analyzing ecofriendly perovskite solar cells (20)

More from IRJET Journal

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Analyzing ecofriendly perovskite solar cells