Industrial Cleaning Sequences for Al2O3-passivated PERC Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate different industrial applicable cleaning sequences on test wafers and PERC solar cells in comparison to a laboratory type RCA clean. The cleaning sequences pSC1, HF/HCl, HF/O3 and HF/O3 show lifetimes between 1 ms and 2 ms which is comparable to a laboratory type RCA clean corresponding to a surface recombination velocity Spass below 15 cm/s. The pSC1, HF/HCl clean achieves lifetimes around 1 ms, whereas the PSG-etch shows poor cleaning quality with lifetimes around 500 μs. Reference PERC cells using a rear protection layer before texturing and diffusion demonstrate efficiencies up to 20.4% for the cleaning sequence pSC1, HF/HCl prior to passivation which is comparable to the RCA clean. The HF/O3 cleans result in lower PERC efficiencies up to 20.0% mainly due to a lower Fill Factor which is likely caused by etching of the emitter and hence increased contact resistance. Investigations of polished test wafers show that the cleaning sequences pSC1, HF/HCl, HF-Dip and pSC1, HF/HCl, HF/O3 are able to sufficiently remove porous silicon from the front side and simultaneously allowing excellent rear surface passivation. A first batch of PERC solar cell results with polished rear surface post texturing and POCl3 diffusion achieves efficiencies of up to 20.7% when applying an RCA clean. However, the pSC1, HF/HCl and pSC1 HF/O3 still exhibit significantly lower efficiencies since in this batch the porous silicon of the emitter was not yet sufficiently removed, which is subject to further optimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".