Investigation of Polymer/Si Thin Film Tandem Solar Cell Using TCAD Numerical Simulation

Abstract

The current study introduces a two-terminal (2T) thin-film tandem solar cell (TSC) comprised of a polymer-based top sub cell and a thin crystalline silicon (c-Si) bottom sub cell. The photoactive layer of the top sub cell is a blend of PDTBTBz-2F as a polymer donor and PC₇₁BM as a fullerene acceptor. Initially, a calibration of the two sub cells is carried out against experimental studies, providing a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 9.88% for the top sub cell and 14.26% for the bottom sub cell. Upon incorporating both sub cells in a polymer/Si TSC, the resulting cell shows a PCE of 20.45% and a short circuit current density (J_sc) of 13.40 mA/cm². Then, we optimize the tandem performance by controlling the valence band offset (VBO) of the polymer top cell. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of varying the top absorber defect density and the thicknesses of both absorber layers in an attempt to obtain the maximum obtainable PCE. After optimizing the tandem cell and at the designed current matching condition, the J_sc and PCE of the tandem cell are improved to 16.43 mA/cm² and 28.41%, respectively. Based on this TCAD simulation study, a tandem configuration established from an all thin-film model may be feasible for wearable electronics applications. All simulations utilize the Silvaco Atlas package where the cells are subjected to standard one Sun (AM1.5G, 1000 W/m²) spectrum illumination.

1. Introduction

Photovoltaics propose promising solutions to the energy demand issue. Various types of solar cells have been widely presented and published. The central goal of recent research is to achieve efficient solar cells with a low cost of fabrication [1,2,3]. The generations of solar cells can be summarized in four generations. First, a generation based on the crystalline-silicon (c-Si), and gallium arsenide. Second, a generation based on amorphous and microcrystalline thin film silicon, copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS), cadmium sulfide (CdS), and cadmium telluride (CdTe). New compounds like organics, polymers and perovskites, and structures like tandem solar cells (TSCs) are the base of the third generation [4,5,6,7,8]. According to the non-toxicity, stability, abundancy, and well-known technology of silicon, silicon solar cells demonstrate the highest share of solar cells’ market. The power conversion efficiency (PCE) of silicon solar cells exceeds 26% [9]. Additionally, many efforts have been conducted in order to achieve low-cost silicon solar cells [10,11,12,13,14]. Recently, a generation based on the insertion of the stable inorganic generation into the flexible, and low-cost polymers like metal-nanoparticles, and metal-oxides has been developed.

Bulk heterojunction polymer solar cells are gaining attention as they have the potential to provide flexible, lightweight, and cost-effective alternatives to silicon-based solar cells [15]. Researchers have been working on improving the charge selectivity of inverted polymer-based solar cells by inserting a sub monolayer of dyes containing functional cyano-carboxylic at the interface between the inorganic metal oxide (ZnO) and organic active layer, resulting in an improved conversion efficiency to 3.52% [16]. Y. Yan et al. [17] recently synthesized and used TiO₂:TOPD as the electron transport layer in single-junction inverted polymer solar cells, resulting in a high fill factor (FF) of 72% and the best power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 10.55%, making it one of the best single-junction inverted polymer solar cells ever reported, with superior stability under ambient conditions when compared to conventional device configuration.

The maximum PCE of single-junction solar cells is limited to 33.7% [18]. This limitation can be explained by the absorption in these cells being limited to the photons with an energy gap higher than or equal the energy gap of the utilized materials. TSCs propose a favorable solution to this limitation. The structure of this type of solar cells contains sub cells with different absorber materials to absorb most of the incident spectrum [19]. The maximum efficiency of a tandem with infinity sub cells is theoretically 68.2% [20]. Tandems can be established from any two or more complementary materials to absorb most of the radiation spectrum where the power spectrum is divided amongst the multiple absorbers. Normally, a two-junction tandem configuration comprises a wide bandgap top sub cell which absorbs the low wavelength photons and a narrow bandgap sub cell to absorb the high wavelength photons. Numerous combinations of sub cells have been researched. These include All-perovskite (meaning perovskite top sub cell and perovskite bottom sub cell) [21,22,23,24], All-organic [25,26,27], All-polymer [28,29], perovskite/silicon [30,31,32], perovskite/CIGS [9,33], and many more.

In order to provide nontoxic, eco-friendly, flexible solar cells, some research studies have been provided. Some of these included CIGS as a bottom sub cell [34,35,36] while others included Silicon [37,38]. Compared to Silicon, it is recognized that material availability is an issue in CIGS solar cells as indium and gallium are rare metals and, consequently, have expensive prices. So, the cost of processing CIGS-based solar cells is higher than that of Si. Furthermore, the CdS buffer layer encountered in CIGS cells usually uses carcinogenic cadmium, which is quite toxic. This issue puts a limit on CIGS fabrication, unlike Si, which has environmentally friendly materials. In addition, polymer solar cells receive extensive attention because they are lightweight and flexible in addition to other third-generation advantages [39]. Thus, the integration of polymer and Silicon in a TSC deserves more attention. Implementing polymer/silicon TSC can achieve higher efficiencies than single-junction solar cells. In addition to reduced material cost compared to other Silicon based TSCs, flexibility and lightweight are other advantages that may make thin film polymer/silicon TSC suitable for a wider range of applications.

This paper proposes a 2T monolithic TSC combining a top polymer-based sub cell with a bottom thin film c-Si sub cell. Solar cells established on these materials, which are cost-effective to manufacture, are considered environmentally sustainable. When all of the layers are thin film, a flexible tandem can be produced and employed in various uses, including wearable devices. We calibrate the separate sub cells against experimental investigations to validate our simulator, considering the proper geometric and physical considerations before modeling our suggested TSC. Next, we optimize the tandem performance by tuning the valence band offset (VBO) of the top sub cell. Then, the influence of varying the top absorber defect density on the tandem performance is investigated. Furthermore, we vary the thickness of both absorbers to boost the tandem efficiency. Finally, the current matching point (CMP) is inspected for maximum obtainable PCE. The provided TCAD simulation study can shed light on an emerging technology that could become one of the top alternative materials for thin Si-based TSCs.

2. Simulation Approach and Device Structures

2.1. Silvaco Atlas Numerical Approach

Various software packages can be utilized to assess the performance of single or multijunction solar cells, like SCAPS [40,41], Silvaco [6,12,42], COMSOL [43], AMPS [44], and wxAMPS [45]. This study uses the Silvaco TCAD simulator to model and simulate the proposed tandem cell’s electrical and optical characteristics. The numerical simulation discretizes the solution of the semiconductor carriers’ equations through a specified grid [46]. First, an illumined input source is used (AM1.5G). Then, the photogeneration rates are obtained and incorporated into the continuity equation generation terms. In optoelectronic device simulation, photogeneration and optical ray tracing models are computed together at each bias. The real part of the refractive index is used to calculate the optical intensity in the optical ray tracing model. On the other hand, the photogeneration model calculates a new carrier concentration using the extinction coefficient. After that, the required terminal currents are attained using an electrical simulation, and the transport properties are simulated using the drift-diffusion model.

The physical models incorporated into Atlas are selected as follows. The Shockley–Read–Hall (SRH) mechanism allows the consideration of the trap recombination through the bandgap defect levels of the simulated material. In addition, the models for optical recombination, Fermi-Dirac distribution, and concentration-dependent mobility are also utilized. In a 2T TSC, the two sub cells should be interconnected using a tunnel junction or thin interlayers of Silver (Ag) or Gold (Au) [47]. Additionally, an indium oxide (InO) interlayer, which has been experimentally verified to be efficient for both optical and electrical behavior, can be used as an interlayer [48]. In this study, we utilize a lumped resistance as a connecting layer between the two sub cells allowing the current transports across the tandem sub cells [49].

2.2. Subcell Configurations and Simulation Parameters

An n–i–p heterojunction polymer top cell is offered on the basis of a practical structure of an experimental solar cell [28]. The active layer blends PDTBTBz-2F as the polymer donor and PC₇₁BM as the fullerene acceptor. Photogenerated electron-hole pairs (EHP) are extracted by sandwiching the active layer between low n-type doped Zinc oxide (ZnO) and high-doped p⁺-PEDOT:PSS layers. The schematic structure and energy band profile of the polymer-based top cell are illustrated in Figure 1a,b, respectively. As illustrated in Figure 1b, the band bending implies that the built-in potential emerges on the active layer (i.e., intrinsic regions) in a direction where electrons and holes are separated to the electron transport layer (ETL) and the hole transport layer (HTL), respectively. Table 1 presents the layers’ essential parameters obtained from previously available investigations [28,50,51,52]. Table 2 also includes defect parameters in the absorber layer and at the two interfaces (ZnO/Polymer and Polymer/PEDOT:PSS). The front indium-doped tin oxide (ITO) contact has a work function of 4.4 eV, whereas the work function of the back Ag contact is considered 4.25 eV. The illuminated (AM1.5G) current-voltage (J–V) curves are presented in Figure 1c for both simulated and experimental data [28]. In addition, the simulated external quantum efficiency (EQE) curve is also shown in Figure 1d. The corresponding simulated photovoltaic (PV) parameters are listed in Table 3, which agree with the experimental results.

On the other hand, we calibrate an n⁺–p–p⁺ homojunction c-Si bottom cell against an experimental thin film c-Si cell [53]. The manufacturing processes of the thin Si cell were as follows: (1) a 380 μm Czochralski grade n-type c-Si wafer was etched to create a 20 μm thin c-Si substrate, (2) the spin-on-dopant technique was utilized to produce the back surface field (BSF) and emitter regions, and (3) Al electrodes were defined [53]. The bottom Si cell’s schematic structure and energy band diagram are exhibited in Figure 2a,b, respectively. Table 1 presents the main factors of the layers [54]. Furthermore, the Atlas package includes preset settings for carrier mobility and lifetime. The illuminated J–V and EQE curves are displayed in Figure 2c,d for both simulated and experimental data [53]. Table 3 lists the PV parameters, demonstrating a close match between the simulated and experimental findings [53]. The agreement for both polymer and Si cells validates the simulation model used within the Silvaco Atlas package.

Table 1

Basic parameters of sub cells layers.

Parameters	Description	ZnO	PDTBTBz-2F:PC71BM	PEDOT:PSS	n + Si	p Si	p + Si
t (μm)	Thickness	0.03	0.11	0.03	0.10	20	0.20
Eg (eV)	Energy gap	3.2	1.3	1.3	1.12	1.12	1.12
χ (eV)	Electron affinity	4.26	4.2	3.6	4.05	4.05	4.05
εr	Relative permittivity	9	3	3.5	11.7	11.7	11.7
μn (cm2/Vs)	Electron mobility	200	9 × 10−4	1 × 10−4	Atlas default values
μp (cm2/Vs)	Hole mobility	5	1 × 10−3	2 × 10−5
Nc (cm−3)	Conduction band effective DOS	2 × 1018	1 × 1020	1 × 1021	2.8×1019	2.8 × 1019	2.8 × 1019
Nv (cm−3)	Valence band effective DOS	1.8 × 1019	1×1020	1 × 1021	1 × 1019	1×1019	1 × 1019
ND (cm−3)	Donor concentration	1 × 1017	-	-	1 × 1019	-	-
NA (cm−3)	Acceptor concentration	-	-	1 × 1019	-	1 × 1015	1 × 1020
References		[50]	[7,8,28,51]	[52]	[54]	[54]	[54]

Table 2

Defects parameters in the top absorber layer and at the interfaces [7,8].

Parameter	Interface Defects		Bulk Defects
	ZnO/Polymer	Polymer/PEDOT:PSS	Polymer
Defect type	Neutral	Neutral	Acceptor
Carriers capture cross-section	1 × 10−19 cm2	1 × 10−19 cm2	1 × 10−19 cm2
Energetic distribution	Single	Single	Single
Energy level to the highest Ev	0.6 eV	0.6 eV	0.6 eV
Total density	1 × 107 cm−2	1 × 107 cm−2	1 × 1011 cm−3

Table 3

A comparison between simulated and experimental PV parameters of polymer and thin-film c-Si sub cells.

PV Parameters		Voc (V)	Jsc (mA/cm2)	FF (%)	PCE (%)
PDTBTBz-2F: PC71BM Cell	Exp. data	0.98 ± 0.02	13.38 ± 0.16	73 ± 1	9.52 ± 0.23
	Simulation	1	13.35	73.70	9.88
c-Si Cell	Exp. data	0.617	29.60	77.90	14.30
	Simulation	0.615	29.66	78.16	14.26

2.3. Initial Polymer/Si Tandem Cell

This sub section presents the suggested structure of the polymer/Si TSC, as shown in Figure 3a. Here, the tandem sub cells are connected via an interlayer (a very thin metallic film or a transparent conductive oxide) [55,56,57] that performs as a recombination layer that is modeled by a lumped resistance as indicated previously. Furthermore, the lower current that passes through either sub cell controls the TSC current. Once the two sub cells are stacked, the CMP should be maintained to reduce the loss. The designed configuration combines a wide bandgap polymer top cell with a thin c-Si bottom cell. Figure 3b,c display the simulation results (J–V and EQE) regarding the TSC. The corresponding PV parameters are as follows: J_sc = 13.40 mA/cm², V_oc = 1.89 V, FF = 80.54%, and PCE = 20.45%. The results show that the smallest sub cell current regulates the tandem current, while the tandem V_oc is almost equivalent to the sum of the standalone sub cells’ V_oc.

3. Results and Discussions

In this section, we handle the optimization steps for the polymer/Si TSC. First, the VBO impact of the front sub cell on the TSC performance is examined. Then, we investigate the influence of changing the defect density of the top absorber on tandem working metrics. Furthermore, the influence of both absorber thicknesses on tandem performance is investigated. Finally, the CMP is inspected for maximum conversion efficiency.

3.1. Valence Band Offset of the Top Cell

Generally, ETLs and HTLs help to extract photogenerated EHP from the absorber layer, which is then transported to both contacts. The selectivity of the carriers’ transport layers influences the performance of solar cells. As a result, perfect transport layers can significantly reduce interfacial recombination. Energetics and transport characteristics like band alignment and charge carrier mobility primarily define solar cell performance. An optimum band offset can be achieved using an appropriate band alignment at both interfaces (ETL/polymer and polymer/HTL) [58]. Furthermore, CBO and VBO play a vital role in determining V_oc and, thus, cell efficiency, and they are described as [58]

(1)$\mathrm{CBO}=\mathsf{\Delta }{E}_c={\chi }_{absorber}-{\chi }_{ETL}$

(2)$\mathrm{VBO}=\mathsf{\Delta }{E}_v={\left(\chi +E_g\right)}_{HTL}-{\left(\chi +E_g\right)}_{absorber}$

Initially, ZnO and PEDOT:PSS are utilized for the top cell as an ETL and HTL, respectively. The CBO for ZnO is –0.06 eV (almost flat band), and the VBO for PEDOT:PSS is −0.6 eV (large hole cliff), as depicted in Figure 4a. The recombination at the interface is well recognized to be critical due to the cliff-like band offset [59]. In thin-film solar cells, it is generally preferred that the bands be flat or have a slight spike-like band offset [60]. Therefore, we must substitute PEDOT:PSS with a suitable HTL to adjust the interface band alignment. As a theoretical study, VBO is varied from −0.6 to 0.5 eV with different electron barrier values. Figure 4b exhibits the tandem conversion efficiency with different electron barriers as a function of the VBO of the Polymer/PEDOT:PSS interface. As depicted in Figure 4b, the optimum range of VBO is from −0.3 to 0.3 eV with an electron barrier higher than 0.8 eV. To get the best tandem performance, we apply various materials such as copper barium thiostannate (CBTS), copper oxide (CuO), cuprous oxide (Cu₂O), and poly−3-hexylthiophene (P3HT), which fulfill the optimum VBO and electron barrier values. Table 4 summarizes these materials’ main required parameters, indicating each material’s VBO and electron barrier values. In addition, Figure 5 compares the illuminated J–V characteristics regarding the initial and TSCs when employing P3HT, CuO, Cu₂O, and CBTS as top HTLs. Their PV parameters are presented in Table 5. It is clear that when the top cell VBO is adequately designed, the tandem FF is enhanced and, thus, the overall performance is improved. The highest performance is achieved when CBTS is utilized as a top HTL, resulting in an improvement of 19% over the initial TSC.

Figure 6 illustrates the energy band profiles of two different VBOs, which physically interpret the findings in Figure 5. First, the VBO for P3HT is –0.3 eV, which is indicated by the cliff-like band in Figure 6a. The second for CBTS, displayed in Figure 6b, has a flat band. The cliff-like band helps to extract photogenerated holes from the absorber film to the HTL, but it influences the activation energy required for carrier recombination. Thus, the principal recombination mechanism in the cell is recombination losses at the interfaces, where the activation energy (E_a) is less than the absorber bandgap (E_g), resulting in fill factor degradation [58,61]. Finally, as shown in Figure 6b, a flat band is created at the CBTS/Absorber interface. In this case, the carrier flow is not interrupted and E_a remains unaffected, leading to a higher FF value. Consequently, the flat band case is considered to be the most appropriate case. Therefore, with PCE = 24.32%, CBTS is the best choice for the top HTL.

Table 4

Basic parameters of various top HTL materials.

Parameters	Description	CBTS	P3HT	Cu2O	CuO
Eg (eV)	Energy gap	1.9	2	2.17	2.1
χ (eV)	Electron affinity	3.6	3.2	3.2	3.2
VBO (eV)	Valence band offset	0	−0.3	−0.13	−0.2
EB (eV)	Electron barrier	0.6	1	1	1
εr	Relative permittivity	5.4	3	7.1	7.11
μn (cm2/Vs)	Electron mobility	30	1 × 10−4	200	3.4
μp (cm2/Vs)	Hole mobility	10	1 × 10−3	80	3.4
Nc (cm−3)	Conduction band effective DOS	2.2 × 1018	1 × 1021	2.5×1018	2.2 × 1018
Nv (cm−3)	Valence band effective DOS	1.8 × 1019	1 × 1021	1.8×1019	1.8 × 1018
References		[62]	[5]	[63]	[64]

Table 5

PV parameters for the initial and TSCs using P3HT, CuO, Cu₂O and CBTS as top HTLs.

Top HTL	VBO	Electron Barrier (eV)	Voc (V)	Jsc (mA/cm2)	FF(%)	PCE (%)
Initial (PEDOT:PSS)	−0.60	0.60	1.89	13.40	80.54	20.45
P3HT	−0.30	1	2.11	13.52	83.85	23.95
CuO	−0.20	1	2.11	13.51	84.38	24.10
Cu2O	−0.13	1	2.11	13.50	84.48	24.11
CBTS	0	0.60	2.06	13.60	86.67	24.32

3.2. Defect Density of the Front Polymer Absorber

Figure 7 illustrates the variation in TSC efficiency versus the change in the top absorber thickness through different defect densities. We range the defect density from 1× 10¹¹ to 1 × 10¹⁴ cm⁻³, while the thickness varies from 100 to 250 nm. As the figure concludes, the tandem efficiency degrades at a fixed thickness with increasing defect density due to increased carrier recombination (lower diffusion lengths). On the other hand, the tandem efficiency follows the same trend through different defect densities while changing the top absorber thickness. It steadily increases when the thickness does not exceed 175 nm and then gradually degrades when it surpasses this value. To interpret this finding physically, Figure 8 plots the variation in the J_sc of the two sub cells and that of the TSC with different top absorber thicknesses and a defect density of 1 × 10¹¹ cm⁻³. As expected, increasing the top absorber thickness leads to more photon absorption and, thus, less transported light to the rear sub cell. Therefore, increasing the top absorber thickness increases the front cell current and reduces that of the rear cell. The smaller J_sc transporting through the two sub cells controls the J_sc of the 2T TSC. So, the tandem current beyond a 150 nm thickness behaves like that of the bottom cell, reducing efficiency. Therefore, the CMP condition must be fulfilled to diminish the decrease in tandem efficiency.

3.3. Thicknesses of the Absorber Layers

Figure 9 signifies the dependency of the tandem efficiency on the thickness of both absorber layers. We varied the front polymer thickness (t_a,top) from 100 to 450 nm, while the bottom absorber (t_a,bot) was varied in the range (20–50 μm). As can be inferred from the figure, the PCE was unaffected by increasing t_a,bot from 30 to 50 μm and keeping t_a,top below 200 nm. As t_a,top falls lower than 150 nm, the PCE steadily reduces from 26.5% to 23.5%. In addition, changing t_a,bot from 30 to 50 μm does not affect PCE while keeping t_a,top constant below 150 nm. The best tandem performance is achieved with t_a,top = 250 nm and t_a,bot = 40 μm, providing the following PV parameters: J_sc = 16.18 mA/cm², V_oc = 2.04 V, FF = 85.44%, and PCE = 28.22%.

3.4. Current Matching Point

In this sub section, we inspect the CMP by changing t_a,top from 150 to 400 nm while keeping t_a,bot fixed at 40 μm. Figure 10a depicts the J_sc dependence of the two sub cells on t_a,top. As mentioned before, increasing the t_a,top leads to more photon absorption and, thus, less transferred light to the rear cell. Therefore, increasing the t_a,top increases the J_sc of the top cell and reduces that of the bottom cell, confirmed by the results in Figure 10. A CMP ensues at J_sc = 16.43 mA/cm² and t_a,top = 269 nm. The TSC has been simulated by applying this condition, and Figure 10b shows the illuminated J–V characteristics for both the TSC and its sub cells. Their corresponding PV parameters are documented in Table 6. The maximum value of J_sc is 16.43 mA/cm² with V_oc = 2.04 V and PCE = 28.41% for the TSC. V_oc = 2.04 V equals the sum of the top cell (1.47 V) and bottom cell (0.57 V), demonstrating the efficient operation of the recombination junction. Moreover, the EQE of the TSC and its sub cells at CMP is exhibited in Figure 10c. The EQE of the back c-Si sub cell exceeds 85% at a wavelength of around 800 nm.

Finally, Table 7 presents a state-of-art comparison between our 2T monolithic polymer/Si TSC and some multi-junction TSCs reported in the literature. The table demonstrates that some tandems are derived from experimental investigations, while others are based on numerical calculations. Experimentally, until now, the efficiency of a 2T polymer/Si TSC has been limited to 9%. Furthermore, while lead-based perovskite TSCs achieve higher efficiencies than our suggested thin-film TSC, toxicity is a significant issue that restricts their use. Moreover, our simulated polymer/Si TSC exhibits favorable characteristics with a high V_oc and PCE.

4. Conclusions

In this work, we presented a proposed 2T monolithic polymer/Si TSC. In the suggested design, the front cell blends two organic materials (PDTBTBz-2F as the polymer donor and PC₇₁BM as the fullerene acceptor), while thin c-Si is invoked as the rear sub cell. The separate sub cells are calibrated against experimental investigations, providing a PCE of 9.88% and 14.26% for the front and rear cells, respectively. Then, we investigated the VBO impact of the front cell on the TSC performance. Furthermore, we inspected the influences of the top polymer defect density as well as both absorber thicknesses for better tandem performance. After optimizing the TSC and at the designed CMP, the J_sc and PCE of the tandem cell are enhanced to 16.43 mA/cm² and 28.41%, respectively. These findings suggest that the proposed design can pave the way for flexible, environmentally friendly, and high-efficiency tandem cells.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and T.M.A.; methodology, M.O., A.S. and I.S.A.; software, M.O. and A.S.; validation and formal analysis, M.O., A.S., M.M.S. and T.M.A.; visualization, M.O., M.M.S. and I.S.A.; investigation, M.O., M.M.S. and I.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.O., A.S. and M.M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.O., A.S., M.M.S., T.M.A. and I.S.A.; supervision, T.M.A. and I.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing does not apply to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. (a) Basic layers structure, (b) Energy band profile after contact at the dark condition, (c) Comparison of the simulated J–V curve with the measured data [28] under AM 1.5 illumination condition, and (d) EQE of a polymer-based cell.

Figure 2. (a) Basic layers structure, (b) Energy band profile, (c) Comparison of the simulated J–V characteristics, and (d) EQE with the measured data [53] of thin-film c-Si cell under AM 1.5 illumination condition.

Figure 2. (a) Basic layers structure, (b) Energy band profile, (c) Comparison of the simulated J–V characteristics, and (d) EQE with the measured data [53] of thin-film c-Si cell under AM 1.5 illumination condition.

Figure 3. (a) Basic layers structure, (b) Illuminated J–V, and (c) EQE curves of initial polymer/Si TSC.

Figure 4. (a) Energy band profiles of tandem top cell with initial transport layers (ZnO and PEDOT:PSS) and (b) A theoretical study for conversion efficiency dependency on VBO of top HTL layer with different electron barriers.

Figure 5. A comparative analysis between the illuminated J–V characteristics for the initial and TSCs utilizing P3HT, CuO, Cu2O and CBTS as top HTLs.

Figure 6. Energy band diagrams of (a) a cliff-like band occurs concerning P3HT/Absorber and (b) a flat band concerning CBTS/Absorber.

Figure 7. Tandem efficiency dependence on the variation of the thickness and defect density of the top absorber.

Figure 8. Variation of Jsc of the sub cells and that of the TSC with different top absorber thicknesses and a defect density of 1 × 1011 cm−3.

Figure 9. Tandem efficiency dependency on the thickness of the two absorber films.

Figure 10. (a) Jsc dependence of the two sub cells on the top absorber thickness (ta,top), (b) illuminated J–V and (c) EQE spectra of the polymer/Si TSC and its sub cells under CMP.

Table 6

PV parameters of polymer/Si TSC at CMP.

PV Parameters	Voc (V)	Jsc (mA/cm2)	FF (%)	PCE (%)
Top cell	1.47	16.43	86.26	20.87
Bottom cell	0.57	16.43	80.75	7.54
Tandem cell	2.04	16.43	84.81	28.41

Table 7

A state-of-art comparison between PV metrics of polymer/Si TSC and some TSCs reported in the literature.

Top Cell	Bottom Cell	Method	Jsc (mA/cm2)	Voc (V)	FF (%)	PCE (%)	REF
polymer: organicPBDB-T-2F:Y6	Si	Exp.	15.81	1.08	55.57	8.32	[65]
polymer: organicPBDB-T:ITIC	Si	Exp.	-	-	-	15.25 *	[65]
Lead-based Perovskite	organic PBDB-T-2F:Y6:P71CBM	Exp.	14.56	2.13	75.60	23.40	[9]
Lead-based Perovskite	CIGS	Exp.	19.24	1.768	72.90	24.20	[9]
Lead-based Perovskite	Si	Exp.	20.24	1.979	81.20	32.50	[30]
Sb2S3	Si	Sim.	18.04	1.64	82.41	24.34	[37]
Lead-free Perovskite	Si	Sim.	16.01	1.76	86.70	24.40	[31]
Lead-based Perovskite	CIGS	Sim.	20.49	1.81	81.80	30.50	[33]
polymer: fullerene (PDTBTBz-2F: PC71BM)	Si	Sim.	16.43	2.04	84.81	28.41	This work

Sim. = simulation and Exp. = experiment, *: it is a 4T tandem cell.

References

1. Zekry, A.; Shaker, A.; Salem, M. Solar Cells and Arrays: Principles, Analysis, and Design. Advances in Renewable Energies and Power Technologies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 3-56. ISBN 9780128132173

2. Petrović-Ranđelović, M.; Kocić, N.; Stojanović-Ranđelović, B. The Importance of Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Development. Econ. Sustain. Dev.; 2020; 4, pp. 15-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5937/ESD2002016P]

3. Okil, M.; Salem, M.S.; Abdolkader, T.M.; Shaker, A. From Crystalline to Low-Cost Silicon-Based Solar Cells: A Review. Silicon; 2022; 14, pp. 1895-1911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12633-021-01032-4]

4. Senthilkumar, R.; Ramakrishnan, S.; Balu, M.; Batabyal, S.K.; Yoo, D.J.; Kumaresan, D.; Kothurkar, N.K. Co_xMo_(1−x)S₂ Intermixed Reduced Graphene Oxide as Efficient Counter Electrode Materials for High-Performance Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy; 2023; 48, pp. 5901-5914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.156]

5. Salem, M.S.; Shaker, A.; Salah, M.M. Device Modeling of Efficient PBDB-T: PZT-Based All-Polymer Solar Cell: Role of Band Alignment. Polymers; 2023; 15, 869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15040869]

6. Okil, M.; Shaker, A.; Ahmed, I.S.; Abdolkader, T.M.; Salem, M.S. Evaluation of a Proposed Barium Di-silicide Tandem Solar Cell Using TCAD Numerical Simulation. Opt. Quantum Electron.; 2023; 55, 475. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11082-023-04734-8]

7. Alanazi, T.I.; Sabbagh, M. El Proposal and Design of Flexible All-Polymer/CIGS Tandem Solar Cell. Polymers; 2023; 15, 1823. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15081823]

8. Salem, M.S.; Shaker, A.; Abouelatta, M.; Saeed, A. Full Optoelectronic Simulation of Lead-Free Perovskite/Organic Tandem Solar Cells. Polymers; 2023; 15, 784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15030784]

9. Green, M.A.; Dunlop, E.D.; Siefer, G.; Yoshita, M.; Kopidakis, N.; Bothe, K.; Hao, X. Solar Cell Efficiency Tables (Version 61). Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl.; 2023; 31, pp. 3-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pip.3646]

10. Putnam, M.C.; Boettcher, S.W.; Kelzenberg, M.D.; Turner-Evans, D.B.; Spurgeon, J.M.; Warren, E.L.; Briggs, R.M.; Lewis, N.S.; Atwater, H.A. Si Microwire-Array Solar Cells. Energy Environ. Sci.; 2010; 3, pp. 1037-1041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00014k]

11. Salem, M.S.; Zekry, A.; Shaker, A.; Abouelatta, M. Design and Simulation of Proposed Low Cost Solar Cell Structures Based on Heavily Doped Silicon Wafers. Proceedings of the Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference; Portland, OR, USA, 5–10 June 2016; pp. 2393-2397.

12. Salem, M.S.; Alzahrani, A.J.; Ramadan, R.A.; Alanazi, A.; Shaker, A.; Abouelatta, M.; Gontrand, C.; Elbanna, M.; Zekry, A. Physically Based Analytical Model of Heavily Doped Silicon Wafers Based Proposed Solar Cell Microstructure. IEEE Access; 2020; 8, pp. 138898-138906. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3012657]

13. Salem, M.; Zekry, A.; Abouelatta, M.; Alshammari, M.T.; Alanazi, A.; Al-Dhlan, K.A.; Shaker, A. Influence of Base Doping Level on the Npn Microstructure Solar Cell Performance: A TCAD Study. Opt. Mater.; 2021; 121, 111501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optmat.2021.111501]

14. Kim, G.; Kim, G.; Lim, J.W.; Lim, J.W.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Yun, S.J.; Yun, S.J.; Park, M.A. Transparent Thin-Film Silicon Solar Cells for Indoor Light Harvesting with Conversion Efficiencies of 36% without Photodegradation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces; 2020; 12, pp. 27122-27130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c04517]

15. Heeger, A.J. 25th Anniversary Article: Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells: Understanding the Mechanism of Operation. Adv. Mater.; 2014; 26, pp. 10-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.201304373]

16. Ambade, S.B.; Ambade, R.B.; Kim, S.; Park, H.; Yoo, D.J.; Lee, S.H. Performance Enhancement in Inverted Solar Cells by Interfacial Modification of ZnO Nanoparticle Buffer Layer. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.; 2014; 14, pp. 8561-8566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2014.9996]

17. Yan, Y.; Cai, F.; Yang, L.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, F.; Xiong, C.; Zhou, Y.; Lidzey, D.G.; Wang, T. Light-Soaking-Free Inverted Polymer Solar Cells with an Efficiency of 10.5% by Compositional and Surface Modifications to a Low-Temperature-Processed TiO2Electron-Transport Layer. Adv. Mater.; 2017; 29, 1604044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adma.201604044]

18. Shockley, W.; Queisser, H.J. Detailed Balance Limit of Efficiency of P-n Junction Solar Cells. J. Appl. Phys.; 1961; 32, pp. 510-519. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1736034]

19. Yasodharan, R.; Senthilkumar, A.P.; Mohankumar, P.; Ajayan, J.; Sivabalakrishnan, R. Investigation and Influence of Layer Composition of Tandem Perovskite Solar Cells for Applications in Future Renewable and Sustainable Energy. Optik; 2020; 212, 164723. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.164723]

20. De Vos, A. Detailed Balance Limit of the Efficiency of Tandem Solar Cells. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys.; 1980; 13, pp. 839-846. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/13/5/018]

21. Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Lin, R.; Luo, X.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, K.; Xiong, S.; Bao, Q.; Chen, G. et al. Flexible All-Perovskite Tandem Solar Cells Approaching 25% Efficiency with Molecule-Bridged Hole-Selective Contact. Nat. Energy; 2022; 7, pp. 708-717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-022-01045-2]

22. Palmstrom, A.F.; Eperon, G.E.; Leijtens, T.; Prasanna, R.; Habisreutinger, S.N.; Nemeth, W.; Gaulding, E.A.; Dunfield, S.P.; Reese, M.; Nanayakkara, S. et al. Enabling Flexible All-Perovskite Tandem Solar Cells. Joule; 2019; 3, pp. 2193-2204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.05.009]

23. Wang, C.; Song, Z.; Li, C.; Zhao, D.; Yan, Y. Low-Bandgap Mixed Tin-Lead Perovskites and Their Applications in All-Perovskite Tandem Solar Cells. Adv. Funct. Mater.; 2019; 29, 1808801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201808801]

24. He, R.; Ren, S.; Chen, C.; Yi, Z.; Luo, Y.; Lai, H.; Wang, W.; Zeng, G.; Hao, X.; Wang, Y. et al. Wide-Bandgap Organic-Inorganic Hybrid and All-Inorganic Perovskite Solar Cells and Their Application in All-Perovskite Tandem Solar Cells. Energy Environ. Sci.; 2021; 14, pp. 5723-5759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1EE01562A]

25. Meng, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wan, X.; Li, C.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Ke, X.; Xiao, Z.; Ding, L.; Xia, R. et al. Organic and Solution-Processed Tandem Solar Cells with 17.3% Efficiency. Science; 2018; 361, pp. 1094-1098. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2612] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30093603]

26. Ka, Y.; Hwang, H.; Kim, C. Hybrid Organic Tandem Solar Cell Comprising Small-Molecule Bottom and Polymer: Fullerene Top Subcells Fabricated by Thin-Film Transfer. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 1942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02181-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28512333]

27. Jung, J.W.; Jo, W.H. Low Bandgap Small Molecule as Non-Fullerene Electron Acceptor Composed of Benzothiadiazole and Diketopyrrolopyrrole for All Organic Solar Cells. Chem. Mater.; 2015; 27, pp. 6038-6043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b02480]

28. Rasool, S.; Hoang, Q.V.; Van Vu, D.; Song, C.E.; Lee, H.K.; Lee, S.K.; Lee, J.C.; Moon, S.J.; Shin, W.S. High-Efficiency Single and Tandem Fullerene Solar Cells with Asymmetric Monofluorinated Diketopyrrolopyrrole-Based Polymer. J. Energy Chem.; 2021; 64, pp. 236-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jechem.2021.04.032]

29. Ma, Q.; Jia, Z.; Meng, L.; Yang, H.; Zhang, J.; Lai, W.; Guo, J.; Jiang, X.; Cui, C.; Li, Y. 17.87% Efficiency All-Polymer Tandem Solar Cell Enabled by Complementary Absorbing Polymer Acceptors. Adv. Funct. Mater.; 2022; 33, 2210733. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202210733]

30. Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart Provided by NREL. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/pdfs/best-research-cell-efficiencies.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2023).

31. Amri, K.; Belghouthi, R.; Aillerie, M.; Gharbi, R. Device Optimization of a Lead-Free Perovskite/Silicon Tandem Solar Cell with 24.4% Power Conversion Efficiency. Energies; 2021; 14, 3383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14123383]

32. Bacha, M.; Saadoune, A.; Youcef, I.; terghini, O. Design and Numerical Investigation of Perovskite/Silicon Tandem Solar Cell. Opt. Mater.; 2022; 131, 112671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optmat.2022.112671]

33. Mousa, M.; Salah, M.M.; Amer, F.Z.; Saeed, A.; Mubarak, R.I. High Efficiency Tandem Perovskite/CIGS Solar Cell. Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Smart Power & Internet Energy Systems (SPIES); Bangkok, Thailand, 15–18 September 2020; pp. 224-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SPIES48661.2020.9242927]

34. Luo, J.; Tang, L.; Wang, S.; Yan, H.; Wang, W.; Chi, Z.; Gong, J.; Li, J.; Xiao, X. Manipulating Ga Growth Profile Enables All-Flexible High-Performance Single-Junction CIGS and 4 T Perovskite/CIGS Tandem Solar Cells. Chem. Eng. J.; 2023; 455, 140960. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.140960]

35. Ruiz-Preciado, M.A.; Gota, F.; Fassl, P.; Hossain, I.M.; Singh, R.; Laufer, F.; Schackmar, F.; Feeney, T.; Farag, A.; Allegro, I. et al. Monolithic Two-Terminal Perovskite/CIS Tandem Solar Cells with Efficiency Approaching 25%. ACS Energy Lett.; 2022; 7, pp. 2273-2281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c00707] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35844471]

36. Li, S.; Wang, C.; Zhao, D.; An, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhao, X.; Li, X. Flexible Semitransparent Perovskite Solar Cells with Gradient Energy Levels Enable Efficient Tandems with Cu(In,Ga)Se₂. Nano Energy; 2020; 78, 105378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2020.105378]

37. Okil, M.; Shaker, A.; Ahmed, I.S.; Abdolkader, T.M.; Salem, M.S. Design and Analysis of Sb2S3/Si Thin Film Tandem Solar Cell. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells; 2023; 253, 112210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112210]

38. Kudryashov, D.A.; Morozov, I.A.; Gudovskikh, A.S. Full Silicon Tandem Solar Cells Based on Vertically Aligned Nanostructures. Int. J. Photoenergy; 2022; 2022, 8799060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8799060]

39. Gnida, P.; Amin, M.F.; Pajak, A.K.; Jarzabek, B. Polymers in High-Efficiency Solar Cells: The Latest Reports. Polymers; 2022; 14, 1946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14101946]

40. Abdelaziz, W.; Zekry, A.; Shaker, A.; Abouelatta, M. Numerical Study of Organic Graded Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cell Using SCAPS Simulation. Sol. Energy; 2020; 211, pp. 375-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.09.068]

41. Salah, M.M.; Zekry, A.; Abouelatta, M.; Shaker, A.; Mousa, M.; Amer, F.Z.; Mubarak, R.I.; Saeed, A. High-Efficiency Electron Transport Layer-Free Perovskite/GeTe Tandem Solar Cell: Numerical Simulation. Crystals; 2022; 12, 878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cryst12070878]

42. Salem, M.S.; Zekry, A.; Shaker, A.; Abouelatta, M.; Abdolkader, T.M. Performance Enhancement of a Proposed Solar Cell Microstructure Based on Heavily Doped Silicon Wafers. Semicond. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 34, 035012. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6641/ab0078]

43. Zandi, S.; Saxena, P.; Gorji, N.E. Numerical Simulation of Heat Distribution in RGO-Contacted Perovskite Solar Cells Using COMSOL. Sol. Energy; 2020; 197, pp. 105-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.12.050]

44. Hamri, Y.Z.; Bourezig, Y.; Medles, M.; Ameri, M.; Toumi, K.; Al-Douri, Y.; Voon, C.H.; Ameri, I. Improved Efficiency of Cu(In,Ga)Se₂ Thinfilm Solar Cells Using a Buffer Layer Alternative to CdS. Sol. Energy; 2019; 178, pp. 150-156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.023]

45. Bag, A.; Radhakrishnan, R.; Nekovei, R.; Jeyakumar, R. Effect of Absorber Layer, Hole Transport Layer Thicknesses, and Its Doping Density on the Performance of Perovskite Solar Cells by Device Simulation. Sol. Energy; 2020; 196, pp. 177-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.12.014]

46. Michael, S.; Bates, A.D.; Green, M.S. Silvaco Atlas as a Solar Cell Modeling Tool. Proceedings of the Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference; Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 3–7 January 2005; pp. 719-721.

47. Chen, X.; Jia, Z.; Chen, Z.; Jiang, T.; Bai, L.; Tao, F.; Chen, J.; Chen, X.; Liu, T.; Xu, X. et al. Efficient and Reproducible Monolithic Perovskite/Organic Tandem Solar Cells with Low-Loss Interconnecting Layers. Joule; 2020; 4, pp. 1594-1606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.06.006]

48. Brinkmann, K.O.; Becker, T.; Zimmermann, F.; Kreusel, C.; Gahlmann, T.; Theisen, M.; Haeger, T.; Olthof, S.; Tückmantel, C.; Günster, M. et al. Perovskite–Organic Tandem Solar Cells with Indium Oxide Interconnect. Nature; 2022; 604, pp. 280-286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04455-0]

49. Elbar, M.; Tobbeche, S.; Merazga, A. Effect of Top-Cell CGS Thickness on the Performance of CGS/CIGS Tandem Solar Cell. Sol. Energy; 2015; 122, pp. 104-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.08.029]

50. Deepthi Jayan, K. Enhancement of Efficiency of (FA)2BiCuI6 Based Perovskite Solar Cells with Inorganic Transport Layers. Opt. Mater.; 2021; 122, 111671. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optmat.2021.111671]

51. Ko, S.J.; Hoang, Q.V.; Song, C.E.; Uddin, M.A.; Lim, E.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, B.H.; Song, S.; Moon, S.J.; Hwang, S. et al. High-Efficiency Photovoltaic Cells with Wide Optical Band Gap Polymers Based on Fluorinated Phenylene-Alkoxybenzothiadiazole. Energy Environ. Sci.; 2017; 10, pp. 1443-1455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C6EE03051C]

52. Aeberhard, U.; Schiller, A.; Masson, Y.; Zeder, S.J.; Blülle, B.; Ruhstaller, B. Analysis and Optimization of Organic Tandem Solar Cells by Full Opto-Electronic Simulation. Front. Photonics; 2022; 3, 891565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphot.2022.891565]

53. Hwang, I.; Jeong, Y.; Shiratori, Y.; Park, J.; Miyajima, S.; Yoon, I.; Seo, K. Effective Photon Management of Non-Surface-Textured Flexible Thin Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci.; 2020; 1, 100242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2020.100242]

54. Deng, T.; Xu, Z.; Yamashita, Y.; Sato, T.; Toko, K.; Suemasu, T. Modeling the Effects of Defect Parameters on the Performance of a P-BaSi2/n-Si Heterojunction Solar Cell. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells; 2020; 205, 110244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2019.110244]

55. Bush, K.A.; Palmstrom, A.F.; Yu, Z.J.; Boccard, M.; Cheacharoen, R.; Mailoa, J.P.; McMeekin, D.P.; Hoye, R.L.Z.; Bailie, C.D.; Leijtens, T. et al. 23.6%-Efficient Monolithic Perovskite/Silicon Tandem Solar Cells with Improved Stability. Nat. Energy; 2017; 2, 17009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.9]

56. Yan, L.L.; Han, C.; Shi, B.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, X.D. A Review on the Crystalline Silicon Bottom Cell for Monolithic Perovskite/Silicon Tandem Solar Cells. Mater. Today Nano; 2019; 7, 100045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mtnano.2019.100045]

57. Wu, Y.; Yan, D.; Peng, J.; Duong, T.; Wan, Y.; Phang, S.P.; Shen, H.; Wu, N.; Barugkin, C.; Fu, X. et al. Monolithic Perovskite/Silicon-Homojunction Tandem Solar Cell with over 22% Efficiency. Energy Environ. Sci.; 2017; 10, pp. 2472-2479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02288C]

58. Minemoto, T.; Murata, M. Theoretical Analysis on Effect of Band Offsets in Perovskite Solar Cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells; 2015; 133, pp. 8-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2014.10.036]

59. Scheer, R.; Schock, H.W. Chalcogenide Photovoltaics: Physics, Technologies, and Thin Film Devices; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 9783527314591

60. Chen, C.; Liu, X.; Li, K.; Lu, S.; Wang, S.; Li, S.; Lu, Y.; He, J.; Zheng, J.; Lin, X. et al. High-Efficient Sb2Se3 Solar Cell Using ZnxCd1-XS n-Type Layer. Appl. Phys. Lett.; 2021; 118, 172103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0030430]

61. Tanaka, K.; Minemoto, T.; Takakura, H. Analysis of Heterointerface Recombination by Zn1-XMgxO for Window Layer of Cu(In,Ga)Se₂ Solar Cells. Sol. Energy; 2009; 83, pp. 477-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.09.003]

62. Hossain, M.K.; Rubel, M.H.K.; Toki, G.F.I.; Alam, I.; Rahman, M.F.; Bencherif, H. 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. ACS Omega; 2022; 7, pp. 43210-43230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c05912]

63. Jani, M.R.; Islam, M.T.; Al Amin, S.M.; Us Sami, M.S.; Shorowordi, K.M.; Hossain, M.I.; Chowdhury, S.; Nishat, S.S.; Ahmed, S. Exploring Solar Cell Performance of Inorganic Cs₂TiBr₆ Halide Double Perovskite: A Numerical Study. Superlattices Microstruct.; 2020; 146, 106652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spmi.2020.106652]

64. Salah, M.M.; Abouelatta, M.; Shaker, A.; Hassan, K.M.; Saeed, A. A Comprehensive Simulation Study of Hybrid Halide Perovskite Solar Cell with Copper Oxide as HTM. Semicond. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 34, 115009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6641/ab22e1]

65. Park, H.J.; Park, S.H.; Lee, S.W.; Kang, Y.; Kim, D.; Son, H.J.; Lee, H.S. Novel Polymer-Based Organic/c-Si Monolithic Tandem Solar Cell: Enhanced Efficiency Using Interlayer and Transparent Top Electrode Engineering. Macromol. Rapid Commun.; 2021; 42, 2100305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/marc.202100305]