Electron Lifetime in Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells: Theory and Interpretation of Measurements
Electron Lifetime in Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells: Theory and Interpretation of Measurements
Electron Lifetime in Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells: Theory and Interpretation of Measurements
The electron lifetime τn in dye-sensitized solar cells (DSC) is a central quantity to determine the recombination
dynamics in the solar cell. It can be measured by several methods: impedance spectroscopy, IMVS, stepped
time transients, and open-circuit voltage decays. The paper aims at a better understanding of this fundamental
parameter. We summarize the main models that describe the lifetime dependence on bias voltage or carrier
density, and find that there are two complementary approaches to clarify the structure of the lifetime. The
first is to treat the lifetime as a product of the chemical capacitance and recombination resistance. This approach
is important because the resistance largely determines steady state operation characteristics of the solar cell
close to open-circuit voltage. The second approach is based on a kinetic model that describes in detail the
different processes governing the decay of the carrier population in a measurement of τn. The lifetime is
composed of a trapping factor and a free electron lifetime. Since the diffusion coefficient contains the reciprocal
of the trapping factor, it is found that a product (diffusion coefficient) × (lifetime) reveals the shape of the
free electron lifetime, which contains the essential information on kinetics of electron transfer at the surface
as a function of the position of the Fermi level. A model based on an exponential distribution of surface
states provides a good description of the voltage and temperature dependence of free electron lifetime and
diffusion lengths in high performance DSCs.
Juan Bisquert (BSc. Physics 1985, Ph.D. Physics 1992) is professor of Germà Garcia-Belmonte received his Ph.D. degree at Universidad
Applied Physics at Universitat Jaume I, Spain. His recent research activity Nacional de Educación a Distancia, 1996. Recently he follows research in
is focused on hybrid and organic photovoltaic devices, in particular dye- various topics within the field of organic electronics and photovoltaics as
sensitized solar cells. electronic mechanisms in organic lightemitting diodes and plastic and thin-
film solar cells. Device physics using impedance spectroscopy (including
modeling and measuring) is his main subject.
τn ) - ( )
kBT dVoc
q dt
-1
(1)
( )
at Universitat Jaume I, Spain since 2002. He has worked on crystal growth
-1
and characterization of nanostructured devices, making both experimental 1 ∂jrec
and theoretical research. Nowadays he is focused on the study of charge Rrec ) (2)
generation and separation in quantum dots and the application in QDSCs.
A ∂V
specific aspects, avoiding the contamination of side effects in where jrec is the recombination current and A is the cell area.
these complex devices. The dominant method to obtain Rrec is IS.10-14
It has become popular to characterize recombination in a DSC Essential to good device performance is that the carrier
by means of a characteristic time constant that is usually called extraction time should be shorter than the recombination time.
the electron lifetime, τn. This can be measured by intensity Therefore many papers report the lifetime τn in comparison to
modulated photovoltage spectroscopy (IMVS),17,18 which is a the characteristic transport time τd, that relates to the electron
voltage-to-light transfer function. The electron lifetime can also diffusion coefficient, Dn, and active film thickness, L, as
17280 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 40, 2009 Bisquert et al.
L2 dn
τd ) (3) ) -Un(n) (7)
Dn dt
with the film thickness. Since the diffusion length is the average
distance that a carrier diffuses before disppearing by recombina- Equation 8 is linear with ∆n and provides always an
tion, Ln > L indicates good collection efficiency. exponential decay that defines a lifetime in terms of the
It is usually thought that the electron lifetime in DSC reflects recombination rate Un(n) as
the basic kinetics of the recombination of electrons. In fact, we
( )jn
would ideally like to reduce the measured lifetime to a set of -1
∂U
microscopic parameters describing a capture probability, such τn ) (9)
as the formula for bulk homogeneous semiconductors ∂n nj
( ) [ ]
indicating voltage injection of electrons (1) and holes (2) and -1 k BT qVF
1 ∂jrec
recombination (3) processes in a DSC. Also shown are the transport Rrec ) ) nc-1 ) Rcb
0 exp -
energy levels and Fermi levels of electrons and holes, the potential V A ∂VF 2
ALq kr kBT
applied between the contacs, and the potential VF associated with (14)
separation of Fermi levels. (c) The basic equivalent circuit for ac
electrical perturbation. (d) Characteristic impedance spectra measured
on a liquid electrolyte DSC showing the RC arc, and a small Warburg The chemical capacitance for conduction band electrons is36
(diffusion) feature at high frequency.
νel(E) ) 2k0cox
kBT
4πλ
exp - [
(E - Eredox - λ)2
4λkBT ] (17)
∂nc ∂nL
) -Un(nc) - (20)
∂t ∂t
where the last term describes the variation of free carrier density
by trapping (which causes an increase of the localized electrons
with density nL) and release processes. In eq 20, Un groups all
possible channels for recombination of free carriers by charge
transfer through different interfacial levels, as outlined in Figure
3. Taking into account the transfer from conduction band and
from a variety of surface states (at distinct energy levels labeled
E(i)), we may write for the rate of recombination of electrons
in the conduction band, a sum of the transference rates as
follows48
Un ) Ucb
n + ∑ Uss(i)
n (21)
E(i)
that, rather than a single energy level, a distribution of charge Therefore, trapping factors compensate and disappear in the
transfer states exists at the interface in DSC, and we adopt the diffusion length, eq 4
reasonable assumption in eq 21. This approach is supported by
steady state measurements,50 and important additional implica-
tions for interpretation of experimental measurements of lifetime Ln ) √D0τf (27)
are discussed below.
For the calculation of the lifetime from eq 20 we deal first Since the diffusion coefficient of the free electrons, D0, is
with the trapping term, assuming in quasistatic approximation believed to be constant,55 variation of Ln should be attributed
that trapped and free electrons remain in equilibrium, so that merely to the free electron lifetime τf. In experiments, the
we have46,51 electron diffusion length is found to moderately vary with
electron density.22,56-58 Such variation should be proportional
∂nL ∂nL ∂nc to τf1/2 according to the model of eq 27. The observed variations
) (22) of Ln are further discussed in section 8.
∂t ∂nc ∂t
5. RC Structure of the Variable Lifetime in Standard
Inserting eq 22 in 20, we obtain for a small perturbation DSC
We have pointed out in section 3 that the lifetime, τn,
∂∆nc 1 ∂Un measured in liquid electrolyte DSC, is related to the RC arc of
)-
( )
∆n (23) IS shown in Figure 1d. This was shown in eq 15 for a
∂t ∂nL ∂nc c
1+ preliminary simple model with a unique electronic level, and
∂nc we next discuss the structure of the lifetime quite generally,
including both the bulk trapping effect and the presence of
Equation 23 strongly suggests that we define the lifetime of several parallel channels for transference at the surface. We first
free carriers, applying eq 9, as give the general expressions of the model and thereafter we
suggest a specific trap distribution which allows us to describe
( ) ( )
-1 the voltage dependence of the electron lifetime and diffusion
∂Un -1 ∂Uss(i)
τf )
∂nc
) τ0 -1
+ ∑
n
∂nc
(24) length in DSC.
Calculation of the recombination resistance, eq 2, with the
E(i)
general charge transfer expression in eq 21, provides the result
Here, τ0 ) νel(Ec)-1 is the lifetime of free electrons by direct
transference through conduction band, the same as that given
in eq 16. Additional terms in eq 24 correspond to the
transference through the bandgap surface states as indicated in
Rrec-1 ) qLA ( ∂Ucb
n
∂nc
+ ∑
E(i)
n
)
∂Uss(i)
∂nc ∂VF
∂nc
(28)
Figure 3.
From eqs 23 and 24, using the general definition of eq 11, and from eqs 15 and 24 we obtain
we obtain the expression for the measured lifetime
τf ) RrecCµcb
( )
(29)
∂nL
τn ) 1 + τ (25)
∂nc f
Note that eq 29 contains the chemical capacitance of
conduction band electrons. However, as shown in Figure 4, the
In eq 25, the term in parentheses corresponds to the delay measured chemical capacitance is usually dominated by bulk
by traps at the Fermi level when we attempt to measure τn. More traps, eq 19. Therefore the lifetime from IS is
precisely, by detailed balance ∂nL/∂nc ) Cµtraps/Cµcb equals the
quotient of detrapping and trapping rates, which is a proportion
of the time an electron spends in traps with respect of the time τn ) RrecCµtraps (30)
in the conduction band. This term does not correspond to the
time survival of a free electron, which is given by τf. In general, We should also point out that eq 30 underlies all of the
τn, measured by the methods indicated in the Introduction, equivalent experimental methods for the measurements of
should be called a response time of the recombination process, lifetime in DSC.
but for simplicity we may still denote τn the “lifetime”, once Combining eqs 29 and 30 we find
the content of this quantity is properly understood. It has been
long recognized that trapping levels produce a considerable
delay in the response time with respect to the recombination Cµtraps
τn ) τf (31)
time τf.42,52 For a continuous distribution of traps, increasing Cµcb
the Fermi level progressively occupies deep traps, and a large
variation of the response time results.53
There is strong evidence that the trapping factor in eq 25 This is the same result as eq 25 (provided that ∂nL/∂nc . 1),
actually occurs in DSC. This is because the same factor applies showing the decomposition of τn in trapping and free carrier
in the measurement of the (chemical) diffusion coefficient46,54 lifetime terms. As mentioned above, this approach has received
ample attention in the literature,58 due to the general emphasis
( )
∂nL -1 on the calculation of the diffusion length. Equation 31 shows
Dn ) 1 + D0 (26) that the two approaches used in this paper to model the lifetime,
∂nc the kinetic model and RC approach, give the same result.
Feature Article J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 40, 2009 17285
We are interested to have access to fundamental kinetic For an interpretation of the lifetime, leading toward the
parameters of recombination. The previous analysis shows that extraction of the true kinetic constants that govern recombination
Rrec contains a capacitance, and τn contains trapping terms. The in a DSC, we have two basic approaches.
closest we get to the recombination microscopic parameters, The first approach is given by eq 25 that states that, to a
using the small perturbation methods, is the free electron lifetime large extent, the bias variation of the lifetime in a DSC is an
τf as defined in eq 24. This parameter usually cannot be extracted unavoidable consequence of the disorder in the material. The
from experimental data using eq 29. But we note that eq 26 fact that there is an exponential distribution of traps in the
can be expressed55 nanostructured semiconductor, introduces an exponential de-
pendence in τn, via the trapping prefactor in eq 25. Besides, the
crucial parameter governing recombination by interfacial charge
Cµcb transfer, τf, may also show a potential dependence on its own,
Dn ) D0 (32) as we explain in detail below.
Cµtraps
At this point it is useful to revise the comparably simpler
results obtained in the silicion solar cell, shown in Figure 2.
The main difference between Figure 2 and Figure 3 is the slope
Therefore, combining eqs 31 and 32, we can write
of the chemical capacitances. For the silicon solar cell the slope
is q/kBT, which indicates that electron density increase is
Dnτn due to carriers in the conduction band. For the DSC, Figure 3a,
τf ) (33) the slope is much less steep, it is q/kBT0, or equivalently Rq/
D0 kBT, indicating that the charging with electrons occurs in the
exponential distribution of bandgap states. So for the silicon
solar cell, the recombination resistance is given by Rrec )
We can thus obtain the free electron lifetime as the product
(Cµcb)-1τ0 and the product RrecC provides a constant lifetime.
of experimental quantities: the diffusion coefficient and the
This analysis leads us to the second approach to discern the
measured lifetime. The denominator of eq 33 is a constant which
properties of τn in a DSC, which is via eq 30. We have already
is estimated as D0 ) 0.4 cm2 s-1.59 It has long been recognized
noted the slope of the traps capacitance, Ctraps
µ , observed in Figure
that the mobility-lifetime product relates to free carrier recom-
4a. As for the recombination resistance, it also shows an
bination time in amorphous silicon solar cells.60,61
exponential dependence of the form
6. Characteristic Experimental Results for DSC and
[ ]
Preliminary Interpretation qVF
Let us discuss the characteristic experimental behavior of τn
Rrec ) R0′ exp -β (34)
kBT
and Rrec in DSCs. Data sets representative of a variety of DSCs
with different types of electrolytes and hole conductor (including
two cells with volatile electrolyte with high and lower efficiency, Since the β parameter is typically in the range 0.5-0.7, we
one with ionic liquid and another one with the solid hole must conclude that recombination flux in a DSC cannot be
conductor OMeTAD) are shown in Figure 4 (Table 1).13,14,62 simply proportional to the free electron density, which is the
First of all we remark the exponential decrease of τn on bias case described above in eq 14, and a more complex process is
voltage, as observed in Figure 4c, which is a characteristic result involved. A specific model based on eq 28 will be described
that is very well established and routinely reported in papers.40,58,63 later on.
Furthermore good agreement is often found between the values We should remark in passing that eq 34 is an empirical
of electron lifetime determined by independent methods.63,64 This approximation that works well in restricted domains of bias
is confirmed in Figure 4c, that shows great coherence of the voltage. The observed dependence of recombination resistance
results obtained by IS and Voc decays. The consistency of the on bias may contain additional features, such as a curvature,
outcome of different techniques clearly indicates that τn is an and also a valley, i.e., a minimum of resistance, at low
experimentally well-defined quantity that calls for a more potential,65 as discussed later.
complete understanding, since it contains important information In any case, it clearly appears that in the DSC the two
on recombination at steady state. quantities in the product RrecC, depart from the ideal behavior
In general in DSCs with a resonable performance, the described in eqs 14 and 15. These quantities have different
photocurrent is basically determined by the absorption and slopes on voltage, that are determined by constants R and β.
injection properties of the dye and other light management As a consequence, and in contrast to the crystalline silicon solar
aspects of the solar cell. Near the maximum power point and cells, the lifetime τn in the DSC is not a constant and obtains
close to open-circuit conditions, is where the electron dynamics an exponential dependence on the bias, as shown in Figure 4c.
properties of the device have a more acute influence, via the Such variation can be attributed to the rather different features
recombination resistance, as mentioned before, Figure 4b. of the DSC in comparison with the bulk crystalline semiconduc-
Therefore a combined understanding of τn and Rrec, in the region tor. The preparation of DSC uses low temperature chemical
of voltage around Voc, is an important key to obtain DSC with routes, which provides a lower grade, and more disordered,
higher voltage and fill factor. Here we must highlight that the semiconductor. Further, the DSC is characterized by a hugue
steady state current density-potential curve of a DSC, can be internal interface where the recombination by charge transfer
entirely reconstructed from the knowledge of resistances occurs. At this point it may be useful to recall that a milestone
obtained by IS (by an integration procedure), provided that short- in the development of crystalline silicon photovoltaics was, and
circuit photocurrent is known.62 The most important piece of still is, the control of the main recombination interface, which
information to construct the JV curve and investigate the is the rear contact. In a DSC the recombination interface
performance of the solar cell is the data of recombination occupies by construction the whole active layer, and it is
resistance as a function of voltage. expedient to master the properties of charge transfer events in
17286 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 40, 2009 Bisquert et al.
7. Lifetimes and Recombination Resistance for an If the bias voltage VF is considerably less than λ/q, eq 38
Exponential Distribution of Surface States simplifies to eq 34. The justification to assume an exponential
distrution of surface states instead of another type of distribution,
The main method of analysis of small perturbation parameters
is that eq 34 is in agreement with the experimental results, as
(recombination resistance, capacitance, lifetime, diffusion length)
shown in Figure 4c. Therefore, by the model in eq 37 we obtain
is to observe their dependence with the voltage as in Figures 2
a microscopic description of the β parameter that is determined
and 4. To calculate such dependencies from the general
in measurements of recombination in a DSC.
expressions defined previously, we assume a specific model
In eq 39 we observe that β parameter has two different
which has two main elements, as indicated in Figure 4:24 (1) an
components and these can be traced to eq 37. The recombination
exponential distribution of bulk trap states, with parameter T0b
resistance decreases exponentially with the voltage by two
(and Rb ) T/T0b), and (2) an exponential distribution of surface
reasons. The first is that the density of states participating in
states gss, with parameter T0s (Rs ) T/T0s).
charge transfer, gss, increases when the Fermi level raises. The
The reasons for distinguising bulk traps and surface states
second is the increase of the charge transfer probability, νel,
have been commented above. We have already mentioned that
with EFn. Eventually, νel may decrease at higher voltage,
the chemical capacitance provides a direct measure of the DOS,
provided that Marcus inverted region is reached. In this situation
but it is a spatial average in which the more abundant states
eq 34 is not valid and we should use a more complete expression
will dominate. Therefore in principle Ctraps
µ in eq 19 corresponds
such as eq 38.
to bulk traps located in the interior of the metal oxide
Importantly, the two components of the recombination
nanoparticles, and a different approach is required to determine
resistance have a different behavior with temperature, since gss
the crucial parameter involved in interfacial charge transfer, Rs
should depend very weakly on T, while νel is thermally activated
) T/T0s. However, if there is evidence that interfacial traps are
as indicated in eq 17. This observation forms the basis for a
more abundant, or that the distribution is the same, the model
method to obtain Rs ) T/T0s that is discussed later. Temperature
can be simplified at any stage by writing simply Rs ) Rb ) R.
of the DSC appears as a critical variable in order to discern the
The probability of charge transfer is described by eq 17.
microscopic components of the recombination parameter β.
Therefore, we have that the rate of charge transfer in an interval
Implicit in the previous modeling of Rrec is the assumption
∆E at energy E is given by
that surface states are occupied according to the bulk Fermi
level. In general, the occupation of surface states, which loose
Uss(i) ) gss(Ei)f(Ei, EFn)νel(Ei)∆E (35) charge by interfacial charge transfer, can be much less than a
n
bulk bandgap state at the same energy level.65 However, if the
transfer rate is not too large, as expected in good quality DSC,
where f(E,EFn) is the Fermi-Dirac function. The calculation of a common equilibrium can be assumed. In quantitative terms,
Rrec in eq 28 with a sum (integral) over the surface state levels a demarcation level can be defined, above which level surface
is states occupation is governed by EFn. An estimation of the
demarcation level in a DSC indicates that it lies quite deep,
( )
0.30 eV above the dark Fermi level.48 Therefore the equilibrium
df(Ei, EFn) -1
Rss
rec
-1
) qAL ∑ gss(Ei) dVF
νel(Ei)∆E assumption in the model of eq 37 is well supported.
Having obtained a complete description of the recombination
E(i)
(36) resistance dependence on voltage in microsocopic terms, we
now use the model to derive also the potential dependence of
the different quantities that can be measured with the small
The sum (or integration) in eq 36 gives the result13 perturbation methods.
Using eqs 19, 30, and 39, we obtain an expression of the
-1 potential dependence of the lifetime
Rss
rec ) q2ALgss(EFn)νel(EFn) (37)
[( ) ]
qVF qVF the free carrier lifetime can be stated as
Rss
rec ) R0′ exp - β - (38)
4λ kBT
where
1
γf ) 1 - β ) - Rs (43)
2
Ln ) B exp [ ]
γf qVF
2 kBT
(44)
(23) Zaban, A.; Greenshtein, M.; Bisquert, J. ChemPhysChem 2003, 4, (55) Bisquert, J. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2008, 10, 3175.
859. (56) Fisher, A. C.; Peter, L. M.; Ponomarev, E. A.; Walker, A. B.;
(24) Bisquert, J.; Zaban, A.; Greenshtein, M.; Mora-Seró, I. J. Am. Chem. Wijayantha, K. G. U. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 949.
Soc. 2004, 126, 13550. (57) Krüger, J.; Plass, R.; Grätzel, M.; Cameron, P. J.; Peter, L. M. J.
(25) Shen, D. S.; Conde, J. P.; Chu, V.; Wagner, S. J. Appl. Phys. 1994, Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 7536.
75, 7349. (58) Peter, L. M.; Dunn, H. K. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 4726.
(26) Peter, L. M. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 6601. (59) Jennings, J. R.; Peter, L. M. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 16100.
(27) Hornbeck, J. A.; Haynes, J. R. Phys. ReV. 1955, 97, 311. (60) Street, R. A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1982, 41, 1060.
(28) Alcala, J. R.; Gratton, E.; Prendergast, F. G. Biophys. J. 1987, 51, (61) Crandall, R. S.; Balberg, I. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1991, 58, 508.
597. (62) Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Bisquert, J.; Palomares, E.; Otero, L.; Kuang,
(29) Sinton, R. A.; Cuevas, A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1996, 69, 2510. D.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.; Grätzel, M. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 6550.
(30) Macdonald, D.; Kerr, M.; Cuevas, A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1999, 75, (63) Miettunen, K.; Halme, J.; Toivola, M.; Lund, P. J. Phys. Chem. C
1571. 2008, 112, 4011.
(31) Ritter, D.; Zeldov, E.; Weiser, K. Phys. ReV. B 1988, 38, 8296. (64) Miettunen, K.; Halme, J.; Lund, P. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113
(32) Brendel, R. Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. 1995, 60, 523. ASAP.
(33) Schmidt, J. IEEE Trans. Electron DeVices 1999, 46, 2018. (65) Mora-Seró, I.; Bisquert, J. Nano Lett. 2003, 3, 945.
(34) Mora-Seró, I.; Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Boix, P. P.; Vázquez, M. A.; (66) Wang, M.; Chen, P.; Humphry-Baker, R.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.;
Bisquert, J. Energy EnViron. Sci. 2009, 2, 678. Grätzel, M. ChemPhysChem 2009, 10, 290.
(35) Mora-Seró, I.; Bisquert, J.; Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Garcia-Belmonte, (67) Barnes, P. R. F.; Anderson, A. Y.; Koops, S.; Durrant, J. R.;
G.; Zoppi, G.; Durose, K.; Proskuryakov, Y. Y.; Oja, I.; Belaidi, A.; Dittrich, O’Regan, B. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 1126.
T.; Tena-Zaera, R.; Katty, A.; Lévy-Clement, C.; Barrioz, V.; Irvine, S. J. C. (68) Snaith, H. J.; Grätzel, M. AdV. Mater. 2007, 19, 3643.
Nano Lett. 2006, 6, 640. (69) O’Regan, B.; Durrant, J. R. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 8544.
(36) Bisquert, J. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2003, 5, 5360. (70) Castañer, L.; Vilamajo, E.; Llaberia, J.; Garrido, J. J. Phys. D: Appl.
(37) Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Garcı́a-Cañadas, J.; Mora-Seró, I.; Bisquert, Phys. 1981, 14, 1867.
J.; Voz, C.; Puigdollers, J.; Alcubilla, R. Thin Solid Films 2006, 514, 254. (71) Bail, M.; Schulz, M.; Brendel, R. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 82, 757.
(38) Mora-Seró, I.; Luo, Y.; Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Bisquert, J.; Muñoz, (72) Cuevas, A.; Recart, F. J. Appl. Phys. 2005, 98, 074507.
D.; Voz, C.; Puigdollers, J.; Alcubilla, R. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
(73) Mora-Seró, I.; Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Denier, B.; Bisquert, J.; Tena-
2008, 92, 505.
Zaera, R.; Elias, J.; Lévy-Clement, C. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 89, 203117.
(39) Lyon, L. A.; Hupp, J. T. J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 4623.
(40) Miyashita, M.; Sunahara, K.; Nishikawa, T.; Uemura, Y.; Koumura, (74) Tena-Zaera, R.; Elias, J.; Leı̀vy-Cleı̀ment, C.; Bekeny, C.; Voss,
N.; Hara, K.; Mori, A.; Abe, T.; Suzuki, E.; Mori, S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. T.; Mora-Seroı̀, I.; Bisquert, J. J. Phys. Chem. C 2008, 112, 16318.
2008, 130, 17874. (75) Cameron, P. J.; Peter, L. M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 7392.
(41) Clifford, J. N.; Palomares, E.; Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Grätzel, M.; (76) Pivrikas, A.; Sariciftci, N. S.; Juska, G.; Österbacka, R. Prog.
Nelson, J.; Li, X.; Long, N. J.; Durrant, J. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, PhotoVoltaics: Res. Appl. 2007, 15, 677.
5225. (77) Arndt, C.; Zhokhavets, U.; Mohr, M.; Gobsch, G.; Al-Ibrahim, M.;
(42) Fan, H. Y. Phys. ReV. 1953, 92, 1424. Sensfuss, S. Synth. Met. 2004, 147, 257.
(43) Hornbeck, J. A.; Haynes, J. R. Phys. ReV. 1955, 97, 311. (78) Shuttle, C. G.; O’Regan, B.; Ballantyne, A. M.; Nelson, J.; Bradley,
(44) McIntosh, K. R.; Paudyal, B. B.; Macdonald, D. H. J. Appl. Phys. D. D. C.; Durrant, J. R. Phys. ReV. B 2008, 78, 113201.
2008, 104, 084503. (79) Mozer, A. J.; Dennler, G.; Sariciftci, N. S.; Westerling, M.; Pivrikas,
(45) Bisquert, J.; Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Pitarch, A. ChemPhysChem 2003, A.; Österbacka, R.; Juska, G. Phys. ReV. B 2005, 72, 035217.
4, 287. (80) Dennler, G.; Mozer, A. J.; Juska, G.; Pivrikas, A.; Österbacka, R.;
(46) Bisquert, J.; Vikhrenko, V. S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 2313. Fuchsbauer, A.; Saricifti, N. S. Org. Electron. 2006, 7, 229.
(47) Bisquert, J.; Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Mora-Seró, I.; Garcia-Belmonte, (81) Juska, G.; Sliauzys, G.; Genevicius, K.; Arlauskas, K.; Pivrikas,
G.; Barea, E. M.; Palomares, E. Inorg. Chim. Acta 2008, 361, 684. A.; Scharber, M.; Dennler, G.; Sariciftci, N. S.; Österbacka, R. Phys. ReV.
(48) Bisquert, J.; Zaban, A.; Salvador, P. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, B 2006, 74, 115314.
8774. (82) Pivrikas, A.; Juska, G.; Mozer, A. J.; Scharber, M.; Arlauskas, K.;
(49) Bisquert, J.; Palomares, E.; Qiñones, C. A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, Sariciftci, N. S.; Stubb, H.; Österbacka, R. Phys. ReV. Lett. 2005, 94, 176806.
110, 11284. (83) Shuttle, C. G.; O’Regan, B.; Ballantyne, A. M.; Nelson, J.; Bradley,
(50) Salvador, P.; González-Hidalgo, M.; Zaban, A.; Bisquert, J. J. Phys. D. D. C.; de Mello, J.; Durrant, J. R. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 92, 093311.
Chem. B 2005, 109, 15915. (84) Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Munar, A.; Barea, E. M.; Bisquert, J.; Ugarte,
(51) Bisquert, J. Phys. ReV. B 2008, 77, 235203. I.; Pacios, R. Org. Electron. 2008, 9, 847.
(52) Haynes, J. R.; Hornbeck, J. A. Phys. ReV. 1953, 90, 152. (85) Garcı́a-Cañadas, J.; Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Bolink, H.; Palomares,
(53) Rose, A. Concepts in PhotoconductiVity and Allied Problems; E.; Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Bisquert, J. Synth. Met. 2006, 156, 944.
Interscience: New York, 1963.
(54) Bisquert, J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 2323. JP9037649