Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jun 10;5(8):1800434.
doi: 10.1002/advs.201800434. eCollection 2018 Aug.

Current Status of Outdoor Lifetime Testing of Organic Photovoltaics

Yiwei Zhang  1 , Ifor D W Samuel  1 , Tao Wang  2 , David G Lidzey  3
Affiliations
Review

Current Status of Outdoor Lifetime Testing of Organic Photovoltaics

Yiwei Zhang et al. Adv Sci (Weinh). .

Abstract

Performance degradation is one of the key obstacles limiting the commercial application of organic photovoltaic (OPV) devices. The assessment of OPV stability and lifetime are usually based on simulated degradation experiments conducted under indoor conditions, whereas photovoltaic devices experience different environmental conditions under outdoor operation. Besides the intrinsic degradation of OPV devices due to the evolution of optoelectronic and morphological structure during long-term operation, outdoor environmental changes can impose extra stresses and accelerate the degradation of OPV modules. Although outdoor studies on long-term OPV stability are restricted by the long data collection times, they provide direct information on OPV stability under mixed degradation stresses and are therefore invaluable from the point of view of both research and practical application. Here, an overview of the current status of outdoor lifetime studies of OPVs is provided. After a summary of device lifetime extrapolated from indoor studies, outdoor lifetime testing platforms are introduced and the operational lifetime of various OPV devices are reviewed. The influence of climate and weather parameters on device performance and burn-in phenomena observed during the degradation of OPVs is then discussed. Finally, an outlook and directions for future research in this field are suggested.

Keywords: lifetime; organic photovoltaics; outdoor; stability; test protocols.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Typical degradation behavior of an organic solar cell.
Figure 2
Figure 2
An “o‐diagram” displaying device lifetime obtained from different testing protocols. Reproduced with permission.28 Copyright 2014, Elsevier.
Figure 3
Figure 3
An early‐stage testing platform for OPV outdoor lifetime studies. Reproduced with permission.30 Copyright 2006, The European Physical Journal
Figure 4
Figure 4
Outdoor lifetime testing platform in a) summer and b) winter. Reproduced with permission.10 Copyright 2015, Wiley‐VCH.
Figure 5
Figure 5
a) The rooftop lifetime testing system in Sheffield, UK. b) The sample chamber. Reproduced under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0.32 Copyright 2016, the authors.
Figure 6
Figure 6
a) General view of the suitcase and its content; b) mounting of the sample platform on top of the suitcase; c) adjusting the angle of the lid via a rod with a thread; d) adjusting the angle to sun altitude; and e) measuring the angle. Reproduced with permission.34 Copyright 2014, Elsevier.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Device PCE as a function of temperature under different irradiance levels. Reproduced with permission.53 Copyright 2004, Wiley‐VCH.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Temperature dependence of a) V OC, b) J SC, c) Fill Factor, and d) PCE measured at fixed irradiances of (600 ± 10) W m−2 and (1000 ± 10) W m−2. Fits show linear curves that characterize the temperature coefficient of the module. Reproduced with permission.56 Copyright 2015, American Institute of Physics.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Irradiance‐dependent performance of an OPV device as a function of irradiance level. All performance metrics are normalized to values determined at an intensity of 100 W cm−2. Dotted lines correspond to results from the self‐consistent numerical simulations for typical inorganic solar cells. Reproduced with permission.64 Copyright 2015, National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Figure 10
Figure 10
a) Degradation of MEH‐PPV expressed as a decrease of the total absorption. b) Acceleration factors for MEH‐PPV and P3HT at different solar intensities. Reproduced with permission.68 Copyright 2011, Elsevier.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Normalized efficiency degradation of devices with either PEDOT:PSS (red triangles) or MoOx (blue circles) as a hole transport layer for devices stored under ambient conditions (≈35% RH) and dry air (<5% RH). Reproduced with permission.71 Copyright 2011, Elsevier.
Figure 12
Figure 12
J–V curves of BHJ devices with a) PCDTBT/PC71BM and b) P3HT/PC71BM as a function of storage time (300 h) following a thermal stability test in N2 and c) IPCE spectra of the devices with P3HT/PC71BM or PCDTBT/PC71BM before and after thermal stability tests. Reproduced with permission.76 Copyright 2011, Elsevier.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Photothermal deflection spectroscopy (PDS) of PCDTBT:PC70BM films. a) Schematic of the PDS set‐up. b) PDS absorption spectra of fresh and aged films, where the absorption below 1.3 eV increases during aging at a similar rate to the decrease in solar cell efficiency during burn‐in. Reproduced with permission.13 Copyright 2012, Wiley‐VCH.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Normalized PCE of PffBT4T‐2OD:EH‐IDTBR devices during a) light soaking without UV light, with devices maintained at a temperature below 50 °C, and b) during annealing at 85 °C in a nitrogen atmosphere. Reproduced with permission.85 Copyright 2017, Wiley‐VCH.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. a) Heeger A. J., Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 10; - PubMed
    2. b) Scharber M., Sariciftci N., Prog. Polym. Sci. 2013, 38, 1929; - PMC - PubMed
    3. c) Dou L., You J., Hong Z., Xu Z., Li G., Street R. A., Yang Y., Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 6642; - PubMed
    4. d) Li G., Zhu R., Yang Y., Nat. Photonics 2012, 6, 153.
    1. Darling S. B., You F., RSC Adv. 2013, 3, 17633.
    1. a) Li S., Ye L., Zhao W., Zhang S., Mukherjee S., Ade H., Hou J., Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 9423; - PubMed
    2. b) Liu Z. K., Sun Y. X., Yuan J. Y., Wei H. X., Huang X. D., Han L., Wang W. W., Wang H. Q., Ma W. L., Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 5772; - PubMed
    3. c) Tan Z. A., Zhang W. Q., Zhang Z. G., Qian D. P., Huang Y., Hou J. H., Li Y. F., Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 1476; - PubMed
    4. d) Ma W. L., Yang C. Y., Gong X., Lee K., Heeger A. J., Adv. Funct. Mater. 2005, 15, 1617;
    5. e) Gao L., Zhang Z.‐G., Bin H., Xue L., Yang Y., Wang C., Liu F., Russell T. P., Li Y., Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 8288; - PubMed
    6. f) Lin Y., Wang J., Zhang Z.‐G., Bai H., Li Y., Zhu D., Zhan X., Adv. Mater. 2015, 27, 1170; - PubMed
    7. g) Li G., Chang W.‐H., Yang Y., Nat. Rev. Mater. 2017, 2, 17043;
    8. h) Zhao W., Li S., Yao H., Zhang S., Zhang Y., Yang B., Hou J., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 7148. - PubMed
    1. Green M. A., Prog. Photovoltaics 2009, 17, 183.
    1. a) Jorgensen M., Norrman K., Gevorgyan S. A., Tromholt T., Andreasen B., Krebs F. C., Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 580; - PubMed
    2. b) Lee J. U., Jung J. W., Jo J. W., Jo W. H., J. Mater. Chem. 2012, 22, 24265;
    3. c) Gevorgyan S. A., Madsen M. V., Roth B., Corazza M., Hösel M., Søndergaard R. R., Jørgensen M., Krebs F. C., Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501208;
    4. d) Gevorgyan S. A., Heckler I. M., Bundgaard E., Corazza M., Hösel M., Søndergaard R. R., Benatto G. A. D. R., Jørgensen M., Krebs F. C., J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2017, 50, 103001;
    5. e) Espinosa N., Zimmermann Y., dos Reis Benatto G. A., Lenz M., Krebs F. C.. Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 1674.