Understanding the Effects of a High Surface Area Nanostructured Indium Tin Oxide Electrode on Organic Solar Cell Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organic solar cells (OSCs) are a complex assembly of disparate materials, each with a precise function within the device. Typically, the electrodes are flat, and the device is fabricated through a layering approach of the interfacial layers and photoactive materials. This work explores the integration of high surface area transparent electrodes to investigate the possible role(s) a three-dimensional electrode could take within an OSC, with a BHJ composed of a donor–acceptor combination with a high degree of electron and hole mobility mismatch. Nanotree indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes were prepared via glancing angle deposition, structures that were previously demonstrated to be single-crystalline. A thin layer of zinc oxide was deposited on the ITO nanotrees via atomic layer deposition, followed by a self-assembled monolayer of C60-based molecules that was bound to the zinc oxide surface through a carboxylic acid group. Infiltration of these functionalized ITO nanotrees with the photoactive layer, the bulk heterojunction comprising PC71BM and a high hole mobility low band gap polymer (PDPPTT-T-TT), led to families of devices that were analyzed for the effect of nanotree height. When the height was varied from 0 to 50, 75, 100, and 120 nm, statistically significant differences in device performance were noted with the maximum device efficiencies observed with a nanotree height of 75 nm. From analysis of these results, it was found that the intrinsic mobility mismatch between the donor and acceptor phases could be compensated for when the electron collection length was reduced relative to the hole collection length, resulting in more balanced charge extraction and reduced recombination, leading to improved efficiencies. However, as the ITO nanotrees increased in height and branching, the decrease in electron collection length was offset by an increase in hole collection length and potential deleterious electric field redistribution effects, resulting in decreased efficiency.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".