Air‐Processed, Stable Organic Solar Cells with High Power Conversion Efficiency of 7.41%
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High efficiency, excellent stability, and air processability are all important factors to consider in endeavoring to push forward the real‐world application of organic solar cells. Herein, an air‐processed inverted photovoltaic device built upon a low‐bandgap, air‐stable, phenanthridinone‐based ter‐polymer (C 150 H 218 N 6 O 6 S 4 ) n (PDPPPTD) and [6,6]‐phenyl‐C 61 ‐butyric acid methyl ester (PC 61 BM) without involving any additive engineering processes yields a high efficiency of 6.34%. The PDPPPTD/PC 61 BM devices also exhibit superior thermal stability and photo‐stability as well as long‐term stability in ambient atmosphere without any device encapsulation, which show less performance decay as compared to most of the reported organic solar cells. In view of their great potential, solvent additive engineering via adding p ‐anisaldehyde (AA) is attempted, leading to a further improved efficiency of 7.41%, one of the highest efficiencies for all air‐processed and stable organic photovoltaic devices. Moreover, the device stability under different ambient conditions is also further improved with the AA additive engineering. Various characterizations are conducted to probe the structural, morphology, and chemical information in order to correlate the structure with photovoltaic performance. This work paves a way for developing a new generation of air‐processable organic solar cells for possible commercial application.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".