Cheng 2016
Cheng 2016
Cheng 2016
Organic solar cells (OSCs) present some advantages, such as simple preparation, light weight, low cost
and large-area flexible fabrication, and have attracted much attention in recent years. Although the
power conversion efficiencies have exceeded 10%, the inferior device stability still remains a great
challenge. In this review, we summarize the factors limiting the stability of OSCs, such as metastable
morphology, diffusion of electrodes and buffer layers, oxygen and water, irradiation, heating and
mechanical stress, and survey recent progress in strategies to increase the stability of OSCs, such as
Received 4th August 2015 material design, device engineering of active layers, employing inverted geometry, optimizing buffer
DOI: 10.1039/c5cs00593k layers, using stable electrodes and encapsulation. Some research areas of device stability that may
deserve further attention are also discussed to help readers understand the challenges and opportunities
www.rsc.org/chemsocrev in achieving high efficiency and high stability of OSCs towards future industrial manufacture.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
2.3. Irradiation
A solar cell is a device that can convert light into electricity, but
most of the representative OSCs are unstable upon irradiation.
For example, MDMO-PPV/PC61BM-based solar cells maintained
half PCE after continuous illumination for 22 h.86 Rand et al.87
investigated the photodegradation of devices with another two
prototypical material systems, P3HT/PC61BM and poly(N-9 0 -
hepta-decanyl-2,7-carbazole-alt-5,5-(40 ,7 0 -di-2-thienyl-20 ,10 ,30 benzo-
thiadiazole)) (PCDTBT)/PC71BM. After continuous illumination for
500 h, both of them showed insufficient stability, the PCE of P3HT/
PC61BM decreased from 3.4% to 1.9% while the PCE of PCDTBT/
PC71BM decreased from 5.7% to 3.8%. In addition to different
materials, the solar cells also showed poor stability during
irradiation with different wavelengths of spectrum88 or different
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of the diffusion of oxygen and water. light intensities.89
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
the active layer, which are also responsible for the instability of
OSCs upon irradiation. Photo-oxidation reactions can also occur
in the buffer layer103 and the active layer/electrode interface.104
Besides photochemical degradation, which changes the
structures of materials, photophysical degradation is another
Fig. 5 Curves showing the degradation as a function of illumination time important type of photodegradation. Yang et al.105 and Adachi
under different atmospheric conditions for device models with normal et al.106 concluded that photoinduced charge accumulation could
geometry (A) and inverted geometry (B) and R2R processed inverted be a severe problem resulting in photophysical degradation of solar
devices without encapsulation (C) and with simple encapsulation (D).83 cell performance. The energy diagram of OSCs and two trap sites in
the interfacial region of the active layer are shown in Fig. 6a and b.
The VOC was dependent on the difference between the lowest
The original reasons for the instability of the device upon
unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level of the acceptor and the
irradiation are photochemical degradation and photophysical
highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level of the donor when
degradation in the active layer, the buffer layer and the active
ohmic contacts were formed on both interfaces of the active layer/
layer/electrode interface. The main photochemical degradation
anode or cathode.107 After 8 h of illumination, photoinduced charge
is photo-oxidation reaction in the active layer. Researchers
carriers (holes and electrons) accumulated in the two trap sites,
proposed some possible photo-oxidation reactions of donors and
inducing the alleviation of the energy band slope and resulting in a
acceptors.90–96 The reactions of three prototypical materials (MDMO-
decrease of VOC (Fig. 6c).
PPV,91 P3HT92 and polyfluorenes (PFs)96) are shown in Chart 1.
These reactions in the active layer can induce some negative effects
on device performance. Firstly, the changed structures of donor or 2.4. Heating
acceptor materials decrease the photoabsorption, which is harmful In the real world, the working temperature of solar cells is
to exciton generation.97 Secondly, these reactions will lead to the usually relatively high due to heating by continuous illumination.
formation of sub-bandgap states of materials, which can increase In the active layer, attributed to the highly conjugated structures of
the energetic disorder in the active layer and may reduce device most donor and acceptor materials, the relative high working
performance by including Shockley–Reed–Hall recombination,
reduced hole mobility and the build-up of space-charge in traps.98,99
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
in Charts 2–6.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
Table 1 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different molecular skeletons of donor materials before and after the stability tests
Chem Soc Rev
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC PCE Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF (%) (%) Ref.
PDPPBDT/PC71BM w (170 h) w (170 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.74(—) 7.1(—) 0.62(—) 3.3(—) 50 145
Change donor to: PDPPDTT — 0.70(—) 13.5(—) 0.63(—) 5.9(—) 80
PCDTBT/PC71BM w/o w (60 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.87(0.84) 10.4(10.2) 0.60(0.53) 5.4(4.5) 84 148
Change donor to: KP115 — 0.62(0.61) 13.1(12.8) 0.64(0.63) 5.2(4.9) 95
PDPP2FT/PC61BM w w/o w/o Tension w/o 2.76 0.72(—) 8.3(—) 0.43(—) 2.5(—) — 152
Change donor to: PDPP2FT-seg-2T 1.60 0.70(—) 8.4(—) 0.48(—) 2.8(—) —
DPPT-TT/PC61BM w w/o w/o Strain (20%) w/o — — — — — 20 153
Table 2 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different molecule side chains of donor materials before and after the stability tests
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
96% RR P3HT/PC61BM w/o w/o 150 1C (11 h) w/o w/o — — — — 3.7(—) 54 171
Change donor to: 90% RR P3HT — — — — 3.4(—) 85
RRa P3HT/PC61BM w/o w (60 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.91(0.87) 4.2(4.1) 0.40(0.37) 1.5(1.3) 87 148
Change donor to: RR P3HT — 0.56(0.56) 10.7(10.5) 0.72(0.70) 4.4(4.2) 95
P3HT/PC61BM w/o w/o 150 1C (24 h) w/o w/o — 0.59(—) 9.3(—) 0.58(—) 3.2(—) 28 173
Change donor to: P3HT-Br10 — 0.58(—) 10.2(—) 0.57(—) 3.4(—) 76
PPDTBT/PC71BM w/o w/o 130 1C (200 h) w/o w/o — 0.81(—) 10.4(—) 0.61(—) 4.9(—) 41 183
Change donor to: PPDT2FBT — 0.86(—) 11.4(—) 0.74(—) 7.1(—) 89
PBDTDPP-1/PC61BM w/o w (110 h) 50 1C (110 h) w/o w/o — 0.66(—) 15.9(—) 0.49(—) 5.1(—) 65 185
Change donor to: PBDTDPP-2 — 0.70(—) 12.1(—) 0.52(—) 4.4(—) 80
PCPDTBT-1/PC71BM w/o w/o 85 1C (650 h) w/o w/o — 0.59(—) 9.5(—) 0.44(—) 2.5(—) 26 187
Change donor to: PCPDTBT-2 — 0.59(—) 7.9(—) 0.43(—) 2.1(—) 55
P3HT/PC61BM w w/o w/o Strain (10%) w/o 2.02 0.37(0.04) 5.5(0.66) 0.29(0.22) 0.59(0.01) 2 188
Change donor to: P3DDT 0.47 0.50(0.58) 2.1(1.9) 0.28(0.30) 0.29(0.33) —
View Article Online
Review Article
Review Article
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
P3HT/PC61BM w/o w/o 150 1C (10 h) w/o w/o — 0.63(—) 10.4(—) 0.64(—) 4.2(1.8) 43 195
Change acceptor to: TPA-PC61BM — 0.65(—) 9.9(—) 0.62(—) 4.0(4.0) 100
PDTSTzTz/PC61BM w/o w (27 h) w/o w/o w/o — — — — 3.1(2.3) 74 197
Change acceptor to: bisPC61BM — — — — 3.7(3.5) 95
P3HT/PC61BM w/o w/o 150 1C (20 h) w/o w/o — 0.59(—) 10.5(—) 0.68(—) 4.2(1.9) 45 200
Change acceptor to: NC60BA — 0.82(—) 9.9(—) 0.67(—) 5.4(4.6) 85
PBDTTT-C-T/PC71BM w/o w (180 h) 75 1C (180 h) w/o w/o — 0.63(—) 7.0(—) 0.44(—) 1.9(—) 50 207
Change acceptor to: DC-IDT2T — 0.80(—) 3.1(—) 0.40(—) 0.99(—) 85
PBDTTTPD/PC61BM w w/o w/o Tension w/o 1.76 0.96(—) 11.2(—) 0.57(—) 6.1(—) — 211
Change acceptor to: P(NDI2HD-T) 0.43 1.06(—) 11.2(—) 0.56(—) 6.6(—) —
Table 4 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different third components before and after the stability tests
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
PTB7/PC61BM w/o w/o 150 1C (16 h) w/o w/o — 0.71(0.62) 11.2(4.5) 0.68(0.32) 5.5(0.9) 16 218
Third component: BABP — 0.71(0.73) 12.3(10.8) 0.66(0.59) 5.8(4.6) 79
P3HT/PC61BM w/o w/o 150 1C (25 h) w/o w/o — 0.60(0.62) 10.3(2.3) 0.66(0.49) 4.1(0.7) 17 220
Third component: PCBS — 0.60(0.58) 9.8(9.5) 0.65(0.66) 3.8(3.6) 95
PCDTBT/PC61BM w/o w/o 85 1C (1 h) w/o w/o — 0.93(—) 10.1(—) 0.56(—) 5.2(—) 75 226
Third component: (PCB)2C2 — 0.93(—) 10.0(—) 0.62(—) 5.8(—) 90
P3HT/PC61BM w w/o w/o Tension w/o 4.37 0.60(—) 6.7(—) 0.59(—) 2.4(—) — 230
Third component: PC71BM 1.53 0.61(—) 6.6(—) 0.50(—) 2.0(—) —
P3HT/OXCBA w/o w/o 150 1C (72 h) w/o w/o — 0.87(0.49) 9.3(7.5) 0.61(0.44) 4.9(1.6) 33 233
Third component: P3HT-g-P2VP — 0.89(0.84) 9.3(9.2) 0.63(0.60) 5.2(4.7) 90
PCDTBT/PC71BM w (45 h) w (45 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.88(—) 11.3(—) 0.55(—) 5.5(—) 35 241
Third component: Al NPs — 0.88(—) 12.1(—) 0.56(—) 6.0(—) 50
View Article Online
Table 5 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different processing methods before and after the stability tests
Chem Soc Rev
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
P3HT/PC61BM w (75 h) w (75 h) w/o w/o w/o — — — — — 55 242
Methods: change D/A ratio — — — — — 70
P3HT/PC61BM w (10 h) w (10 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.58(0.54) 9.1(2.7) 0.57(0.37) 3.0(0.5) 17 244
Methods: change solution temperature — 0.58(0.57) 10.2(6.6) 0.62(0.52) 3.6(2.0) 56
P3HT/PC61BM w (0.5 h) w (0.5 h) w/o w/o w/o — — — — — 0 245
Methods: change solvent — — — — — 35
PCDTBT/PC61BM w/o w/o 80 1C (1000 h) w/o w/o — — — — 5.3(—) 61 247
Table 6 The photovoltaic properties of devices with conventional and inverted geometries before and after the stability tests
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
P3HT/PC61BM w (1 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — — — — — 20 260
Inverted geometry — — — — — 95
P3HT/PC61BM w (48 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.64(—) 9.1(—) 0.67(—) 3.9(—) 0 261
Inverted geometry — 0.62(—) 10.9(—) 0.63(—) 4.3(—) 95
PTB7/PC71BM w (48 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — — — — — 30 263
Inverted geometry — 0.74(—) 14.8(—) 0.67(—) 7.3(—) 95
N(Ph-2T-DCN-Et)3/PC71BM w (360 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.94(—) 7.8(—) 0.46(—) 3.4(—) 5 265
Inverted geometry — 0.84(—) 8.5(—) 0.45(—) 3.2(—) 70
SubPc/C60 w (44 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 1.0(0.82) 3.9(1.5) 0.49(0.24) 1.9(0.3) 16 266
w (96 h) Inverted geometry — 0.99(0.98) 4.7(4.4) 0.41(0.40) 1.9(1.7) 89
PCDTBT/PC71BM w (10 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.88(—) 9.1(—) 0.57(—) 4.6(—) 10 267
Inverted geometry — 0.90(—) 10.0(—) 0.56(—) 5.1(—) 70
View Article Online
Review Article
Table 7 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different hole transport layers before and after the stability tests
Review Article
Table 8 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different electron transport layers before and after the stability tests
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
P3HT/PC61BM w (48 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.59(—) 10.1(—) 0.54(—) 3.2(—) 0 309
Transport layer: CrOx — 0.56(—) 11.6(—) 0.55(—) 3.5(—) 69
P3HT/PC61BM w (12 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.60(—) 9.1(—) 0.69(—) 3.8(—) 30 313
Transport layer: PTMAHT:SDS — 0.62(—) 9.5(—) 0.68(—) 4.0(—) 75
PTB7-TH/PC71BM w (8760 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.79(—) 18.0(—) 0.56(—) 7.9(—) 77 314
Transport layer: ZMO — 0.79(—) 17.4(—) 0.61(—) 8.3(—) 93
P3HT/PC61BM w (720 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.59(—) 11.2(—) 0.63(—) 4.1(—) 68 317
Transport layer: E-ZnO — 0.61(—) 11.9(—) 0.71(—) 5.1(—) 96
P3HT/PC61BM w (4380 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.60(0.61) 11.1(7.9) 0.60(0.47) 4.0(2.3) 58 319
Transport layer: ZnO/PEIE — 0.62(0.63) 10.6(9.1) 0.62(0.62) 4.1(3.6) 88
P3HT/ICBA w/o w (640 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.75(—) 10.0(—) 0.53(—) 3.9(—) 38 329
Transport layer: PA-modified ZnO — 0.77(—) 10.1(—) 0.64(—) 4.9(—) 73
P3HT/PC61BM w/o w (8 h) w/o w/o w/o — 0.57(0.47) 8.9(7.7) 0.63(0.60) 3.2(2.2) 69 330
Transport layer: ZnO/Al — 0.59(0.58) 8.0(6.7) 0.70(0.68) 3.3(2.7) 82
View Article Online
Table 9 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different transparent/back electrodes before and after the stability tests
Chem Soc Rev
Test conditions
Mechanical DR/R0 JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (%) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
PTB7-F20/PC71BM w w/o w/o Bending w/o 35 0.68(—) 15.2(—) 0.56(—) 5.8(—) — 339
Transparent electrode: ZnO/AgOx 1.33 0.68(—) 16.4(—) 0.58(—) 6.3(—) —
PTB7/PC71BM w w/o w/o Bending w/o 68.8 0.74(—) 16.1(—) 0.62(—) 7.4(—) 22 341
Transparent electrode: AgNWs 3.3 0.74(—) 16.0(—) 0.61(—) 7.2(—) 98
PTB7-TH/PC71BM w w/o w/o Bending w/o — 0.78(—) 13.4(—) 0.62(—) 7.4(—) — 345
Transparent electrode: CP-AgNWs/cPI 10 0.78(—) 13.9(—) 0.62(—) 7.5(—) 95
P3HT/PC61BM w w/o w/o Bending w/o — 0.62(—) 8.6(—) 0.60(—) 3.2(—) — 350
Table 10 The photovoltaic properties of devices with different encapsulation materials before and after the stability tests
Test conditions
Mechanical Modulus JSC Z/Z0
Active layer Air Light Heat stress Strategy (GPa) VOC (V) (mA cm2) FF PCE (%) (%) Ref.
P3HT/PC61BM w (1056 h) w/o 85 1C (1056 h) w/o w/o — — — — — — 366
Encapsulation: epoxy resin — 0.60(—) 6.0(—) 0.61(—) 2.2(—) 90
PTB7/PC71BM w (3500 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.75(—) 13.3(—) 0.73(—) 7.3(—) 0 370
Encapsulation: multilayered MoO3/MgF2 — 0.75(—) 10.0(—) 0.72(—) 5.4(—) 60
PCDTBT/PC71BM w (24 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — — — — 5.4(0.4) 7 372
Encapsulation: rGO — — — — 5.5(5.2) 95
P3HT/PC61BM w (150 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — — — — — 15 375
Encapsulation: epoxy resin/glass — — — — — 60
P3HT/PC61BM w (636 h) w/o w/o w/o w/o — 0.61(—) 8.5(—) 0.57(—) 3.0(—) — 381
Encapsulation: ZnO/UV resin — 0.60(—) 8.5(—) 0.55(—) 2.8(—) 80
View Article Online
Review Article
Chart 2 The molecular structures of donor materials with different molecular skeletons or different molecular side chains.
robustness of OSCs. Lipomi et al.152 demonstrated that decreasing As shown in Fig. 12, after the infliction of a large strain of 20%,
the crystallinity of the donor polymer could increase the mechanical DPPT-TT/PC61BM blend film exhibited worse mechanical com-
compliance of donor polymers without deleteriously affecting pliance compared with P3HT/PC61BM blend film due to the
their optoelectronic properties. Random copolymerization of the fused rings on its molecular skeleton. As a result, the PCE of
diketopyrrolopyrrole unit flanked by two furan rings (DPP2F), DPPT-TT/PC61BM solar cells preserved only 20% of its original
thiophene (T) and bithiophene (2T) could create a new polymer value after the large strain. Rigidity/flexibility of polymer chains
donor PDPP2FT-seg-2T, which showed lower crystallinity com- not only affects the mechanical robustness, but also shows an
pared with PDPP2FT. As a result, the tensile moduli of active obvious influence on thermal stability. Changing the relatively
layers were decreased from 2.76 to 1.60 GPa after changing the flexible units to relative rigid units of donor polymers can
polymer donor from PDPP2FT to PDPP2FT-seg-2T which showed increase the rigidity of molecular skeletons, resulting in higher
better stretchability. Tg of polymers (reduced mobility of polymers) which benefits
In addition to decreasing the crystallinity of the donor polymer, the thermal stability.154 For example, PFs and F82T have
increasing the flexibility of molecular skeletons also benefits the relatively low Tgs of 72 1C155 and 80 1C,156 respectively. Inser-
mechanical robustness. Bao et al.153 concluded that the fused tion of rigid benzothiadiazole (BT) units into the molecular
rings in the molecular skeleton could decrease the flexibility of skeletons of PFs and F82T can significantly increase the Tgs to
polymer chains, which was harmful to mechanical compliance. 135 1C (F8BT)157 and 123 1C (F8TBT),158 respectively. As a result,
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
solar cells based on F8TBT/PC61BM exhibited good stability absence of burn-in loss. As a result, the solar cells based on
under heating.159 higher MW L-PCDTBT (59 kDa)/PC71BM blend exhibited much
Block copolymerization which can induce the self-assembly better photochemistry stability compared with the solar cells
of polymer chains is a valid strategy to increase thermal based on PCDTBT (21 kDa)/PC71BM blend. Wegner et al.164
stability.160–162 For example, Dai et al.160 fabricated OSCs based investigated the relationship between Tg and the degree of
on block copolymer (PPP-P3HT)/PC61BM blend which could polymerization. In line with the classical Fox-Flory equation,
form a well-defined double-channel-like structure. As shown in their results demonstrated that Tg could be increased by
Fig. 13, due to the good miscibility between the amorphous PPP increasing the degree of polymerization, which was beneficial
and PC61BM molecules (strong interaction between alkoxy side to achieving better thermal stability of OSCs. Dauskardt et al.165
chains of PPP and PC61BM), the PPP-P3HT block copolymer investigated the relationship between mechanical robustness
could act as an effective structure-directing template for geometrical and the degree of polymerization. Increasing the MW of P3HT
manipulation of PC61BM location. After continuous heating at could increase intermolecular bonding and the probability of
150 1C for 5 h, the PCE of PPP-P3HT/PC61BM solar cells preserved chain entanglement, leading to a greater degree of plastic
88% of its original value due to the slower formation of PC61BM deformation before cohesive failure occurred. As a result, the
aggregations. By contrast, the short-circuit current density ( JSC), FF active layer cohesion values were as high as B 17 J m2 with a
and PCE of P3HT/PC61BM solar cells decreased from 6.8 mA cm2, high MW P3HT (100 kDa)/PC61BM blend, which exhibited much
0.66 and 2.8% to 3.9 mA cm2, 0.44 and 1.1%, respectively, after the better mechanical stability compared with that (1 to 2 J m2) of
stability test. a low MW P3HT (28 kDa)/PC61BM blend.
Unlike the strategies we discussed above (one strategy could 3.1.2. Molecular side chains of donors. Rational design of
only improve one type of stability), increasing the degree of the molecular side chains of donor materials (employing cleavable
polymerization of the donor polymer can simultaneously improve side chains, regioregular (RR)/regiorandom (RRa) side chains, cross-
the photochemistry, thermal and mechanical stabilities.163–165 For linkable side chains, longer side chains, etc.) is also an effective
example, Lee et al.163 improved the photochemistry stability of strategy to increase the stability of OSCs (Fig. 14). The photovoltaic
PCDTBT/PC71BM solar cells by increasing the molecular weight properties of devices with different molecular side chains of donor
(MW) of PCDTBT. Higher MW of PCDTBT could eliminate the materials before and after the stability tests are listed in Table 2, and
trap-embedded fractions which significantly suppressed the the molecular structures of donor materials with different side
photoactivated trap-width broadening and led to the almost chains are also shown in Chart 2.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Chart 4 The molecular structures of other donor and acceptor materials used in this review.
Chart 5 The molecular structures of third components used in the active layer.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Fig. 12 Optical micrographs of DPPT-TT/PC61BM (a and b), and P3HT/ Fig. 15 Optical microscopy images of PhxSDT-DTZ cleaved/PC61BM
PC61BM (c and d) on poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS)/PEDOT:PSS substrates (a and b) and P3HT/PC61BM (c and d) films before (a and c) and after
at 0% strain (a and c) and 20% strain (b and d).153 Reprinted with permission (b and d) the stability test.166
from ref. 153. Copyright 2012, Elsevier.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
the transport of PC61BM which can either pass through the aggregates or
around them in a circuitous path.185
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
fullerene moieties leads to the formation of dimers. Under heating, As shown in Fig. 20, the well-proportioned morphology was
the dimers disappear, and the fullerenes easily diffuse and maintained for the P3HT/NC60BA blend after heating at 150 1C for
excessively aggregate to big clusters (crystallization). Dimeriza- 20 h due to the amorphous nature of NC60BA. In contrast, uneven
tion can lead to very rapid losses in PCE over a short timeframe, PC61BM crystals appeared in the P3HT/PC61BM case indicating that
and crystallization drives ultimate device failure.185 Thus, the thermal-driven crystallization for PC61BM did exist. As a result, the
main strategy of the design of photo/thermal stable acceptors is to PCE of P3HT/NC60BA solar cells preserved 85% of its original value
avoid the dimerization and crystallization, including employing after the stability test, while the PCE of reference P3HT/PC61BM solar
bigger side chains of fullerene, using bisadduct fullerene derivatives cells decreased from 4.2% to 1.9%.
and introducing nonspherical structures (Fig. 19). The photovoltaic Using non-fullerene materials203–206 as acceptors in OSCs is a
properties of devices with different acceptor materials before and new strategy to increase photo- and thermal stabilities due to the
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
after the stability tests are listed in Table 3, the molecular structures nonspherical structure of these molecules.207–210 Zhan et al.207
of acceptor materials are shown in Chart 3, and the molecular reported OSCs based on polymer donor PBDTTT-C-T and non-
structures of donor materials are shown in Charts 2 and 4. fullerene small molecule acceptor DC-IDT2T. The stability of
Changing side chains of fullerene provides an opportunity PBDTTT-C-T/DC-IDT2T and PBDTTT-C-T/PC71BM devices was
to enhance the thermal stability of OSCs.194–196 For example, measured under continuous illumination and heating (75 1C),
Jen et al.195 synthesized a triphenylamine (TPA)-substituted as shown in Fig. 21a. The PBDTTT-C-T/DC-IDT2T device showed
PC61BM as the acceptor material in OSCs. This alteration of the much better stability (maintained 85% PCE after 180 h) relative
side chain from small size to big size broke the high symmetry to the PBDTTT-C-T/PC71BM device (maintained only 50% PCE
degree of PC61BM and therefore decreased its crystallinity. As a after 180 h). After the 180 h stability test, the light beam-induced
result, no degradation in morphology and efficiency was found in current (LBIC) images of PBDTTT-C-T/DC-IDT2T films changed a
the P3HT/TPA-PC61BM blend even after 10 h of heating at 150 1C. little (Fig. 21b and c), suggesting little loss of current during the
In addition to change the side chains of fullerene, employing stability test. In contrast, the colour of LBIC images of PBDTTT-
bisadduct fullerene derivatives as acceptors in OSCs is a more C-T/PC71BM films after the 180 h stability test became darker
widely used strategy for increasing the stability.197–202 This (Fig. 21d and e), which meant significant loss of current.
strategy can simultaneously avoid the dimerization and crystal- In addition to increasing photo/thermal stability, non-fullerene
lization of fullerene-based acceptors. For example, Guldi et al.197 acceptors also show talent in increasing mechanical stability.
investigated the photostability of PDTSTzTz/PC61BM and Kim et al.211 fabricated OSCs based on polymer donor
PDTSTzTz/bisadduct PC61BM (bisPC61BM) solar cells. After con- PBDTTTPD and polymer acceptor P(NDI2HD-T). As shown in
tinuous illumination for 27 h, PDTSTzTz/PC61BM solar cells Fig. 22a, the PBDTTTPD/P(NDI2HD-T) film showed much
degraded rapidly due to the dimerization of PC61BM, which higher toughness relative to PBDTTTPD/PC61BM film due to
reduced charge carrier mobility (the PCE preserved 74% of its its lower tensile moduli (0.43 GPa vs. 1.76 GPa) and much
original value); while devices based on bisPC61BM, which higher elongation (7.16% vs. 0.12%). Besides the tension test,
was not prone to dimerization, exhibited almost no degradation the bending test also announced better mechanical stability of
(the PCE preserved 95% of its original value). The authors polymer/polymer film compared to polymer/fullerene film. As
concluded that the steric hindrance from the two substituents shown in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images (Fig. 22b
was the most probable reason for the higher photostability and c), the apparent degradation was attributed to the crack
of bisPC61BM compared to PC61BM. Wang et al.200 employed propagation in the PBDTTTPD/PC61BM film by the mechanical
a dihydronaphthyl-based [60]fullerene bisadduct derivative deformation (Fig. 22b). In stark contrast, there was no change in
NC60BA as an acceptor to increase the thermal stability of OSCs. the morphology of the PBDTTTPD/P(NDI2HD-T) film (Fig. 22c).
The reason for better mechanical stability of polymer/polymer
solar cells compared to polymer/fullerene solar cells was con-
cluded: the polymer acceptor was intrinsically more ductile than
fullerene and could better entangle with other polymer chains
with strengthened interfaces.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Fig. 21 (a) Stability curves of PBDTTT-C-T/DC-IDT2T and PBDTTT-C-T/ Fig. 22 (a) Strain–stress curves of PBDTTTPD/PC61BM and PBDTTTPD/
PC71BM devices under continuous AM 1.5G illumination for 180 h (75 1C). P(NDI2HD-T) blend films. (The inset in (a) shows photographs of the BHJ
LBIC images of (b and c) PBDTTT-C-T/DC-IDT2T and (d and e) PBDTTTC- blend film floating on water. The specimens were gripped by the poly-
T/PC71BM films (b and d) before and (c and e) after exposing to sunlight for dimethylsiloxane (PDMS)-coated Al grips and the films were prepared
180 h (75 1C).207 All the scale bars are 1 cm. Reprinted with permission from under the optimized device conditions). SEM images of surface morphologies
ref. 207. Copyright 2015, Wiley. of (b) PBDTTTPD/PC61BM and (c) PBDTTTPD/P(NDI2HD-T) blend films after
bending at r = 1.0 mm. The scale bars are 500 nm.211 Reprinted with permission
from ref. 211. Copyright 2015, Nature Publishing Group.
3.2. Device engineering of the active layer
3.2.1. Ternary blend of a donor, an acceptor and a third
component. Ternary blend OSCs consisting of a donor material, an
acceptor material and a third component have received increasing
attention in recent five years. Compared with binary blend, OSCs
with a third component usually have higher PCE.212–216 In addition
to PCE, employing a third component (such as a cross-linker, a
modified fullerene derivative, a compatibilizer, an insulating
polymer, nanoparticles and buffer layer materials) in the active
layer can also increase the thermal/mechanical/photo/air stability
of OSCs (Fig. 23). The photovoltaic properties of devices with
different third components before and after the stability tests are
listed in Table 4. The ratio of the third component described
below is the weight ratio of third component in total weight of the
Fig. 23 Schematic diagram of the strategies to add third components.
donor, acceptor and third component in OSCs. The molecular
structures of donor and acceptor materials are shown in Chart 4
and the molecular structures of third components are shown in temperature would result in a three-membered ring-functionalized
Chart 5. fullerene. The cross-linking reaction between polymer/fullerene or
Cross-linkers can be used as the third components in the fullerene/fullerene could stabilize the morphology of the active
active layer to increase the thermal stability.217–219 For example, layer by preventing the fullerenes from diffusing and forming large
Wantz et al.218 introduced a bis-azide cross-linking reagent crystallites (Fig. 24). After addition of 2% BABP, the PTB7/BABP/
(BABP) as the third component in PTB7/PC61BM solar cells. PC61BM device yielded a PCE of 4.60% after 16 h of heating at
BABP could react with PTB7 or PC61BM through two pathways: (1) 150 1C, preserving 79% of its original value. In sharp contrast, the
upon heating or irradiation, BABP decomposed into nitrogen gas PCE of the device using PTB7/PC61BM blend decayed drastically to
and a highly reactive nitrene, which could react randomly with both 16% after the stability test.
PTB7 and PC61BM; (2) upon heating at a lower temperature, BABP Fullerene derivatives also can be modified as cross-linkers
reacted with PC61BM through a 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition to give and used as third components in the active layer to increase
triazolino(40 ,50 :1,2) fullerenes, and subsequent heating at a higher the thermal stability.220–223 Hsu et al.220 employed fullerene
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Fig. 26 XPS depth profile of the P3HT/PC61BM films (a) without and
(b) with 2.5 wt% PEG-C60. (c) Cross-sectional SEM image of a P3HT/
PC61BM film with 2.5 wt% PEG-C60.237 Reprinted with permission from
ref. 237. Copyright 2011, Wiley.
could protect the active layer from oxygen penetration, the air
stability of OSCs was improved. Stratakis et al.241 employed Al
nanoparticles (NPs) in PCDTBT/PC71BM blend as the third
component. Energy from the polymer triplet excitons excited
singlet oxygen, which reacted with the polymer chains to form
exciton trap states. The Al NPs embedded into the blend acted
as quenchers of the triplet excitons, and in this way, the photo-
oxidation process could be impeded (Fig. 27). This quenching Fig. 28 Schematic diagram of the strategies of processing methods.
was possibly due to the overlap of the excitonic levels with
the plasmon resonance of the embedded Al NPs. As a result, the
PCE of PCDTBT/Al NPs/PC71BM OSCs preserved 50% of images (Fig. 29b and c), P3HT nanofibrils showed dense net-
its original value after irradiation in air (45 h). In contrast, works which were much less permeable to oxygen, and hence
the PCE of PCDTBT/PC71BM OSCs preserved 35% of its the photochemical degradation of P3HT by photo-oxidation in
original value. air could be delayed considerably as compared with P3HT in
3.2.2. Processing methods. Optimization of processing the control device. After exposing the photoactive layer to
methods of the active layer can increase the air stability, sunlight for 10 h in air, the PCE of nanofibril-based P3HT/
photostability and thermal stability of OSCs. As shown in PC61BM solar cells preserved 56% of its original value. In
Fig. 28, strategies can be employed in all processing steps contrast, the PCE of control P3HT/PC61BM solar cells decreased
including solution preparation, film forming and post treat- from 3.0% to 0.5% after the stability test. Yang et al.245 fabri-
ment to increase the stability. The photovoltaic properties of cated P3HT/PC61BM OSCs using 1,8-octanedithiol (OT) and
devices using different processing methods before and after the chlorobenzene (CB) as processing solvent, respectively. The
stability tests are listed in Table 5, and the molecular structures PCEs of these two devices were similar, but photo/air degrada-
of donor and acceptor materials are also shown in Chart 4. tion in OT processed films was much more severe than CB
Solution preparation is the first step in the fabrication of the processed films. The PCE of CB processed OSCs preserved 35%
active layer, and some strategies can be employed in this step to of its original value after irradiation in air (0.5 h). In contrast,
increase the photo/air stability and thermal stability.242–246 For the PCE of OT processed OSCs decreased to 0%. The films
example, Park et al.242 investigated the photo/air stability of made from OT started with a higher concentration of defects,
OSCs with different D/A ratios of 1 : 0.6 and 1 : 1 (P3HT/PC61BM making them more susceptible to photo/air degradation. The
by weight), respectively. As a result, the OSCs with the 1 : 1 increased energetic disorder suppressed the carrier hopping,
P3HT/PC61BM showed better photo/air stability due to the which enhanced the charge recombination. In addition to
lower donor content in OSCs which could reduce the photo- photo/air stability, the change of solvent is also a good strategy
chemical degradation from the formation of oxidized species in for achieving better thermal stability. Moulé et al.246 showed
the donor polymer. Jeong et al.244 fabricated nanofibril-based that the choice of processing solvent had a significant effect on
OSCs by subjecting P3HT/PC61BM solution to cyclical cooling the thermal stability of OSCs. Since o-dichlorobenzene (ODCB)
and heating processes (Fig. 29a). As shown in SEM and TEM had a higher BP compared to CB, the presence of trapped
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
Fig. 30 Optical microscopy images showing annealed morphologies of polymer/PC61BM blend films on silicon oxide (SiOx) substrates with (bottom
row) and without (top row) prior light exposure. (a and b) PS/PC61BM (1 : 1); (c and d) PCDTBT/PC61BM (1 : 2); (e and f) PTB7/PC61BM (1 : 2); (g and h) P3HT/
PC61BM (1 : 2); (i and j) DPP-TT-T/PC61BM (1 : 2). Films at the bottom panel were exposed to fluorescent light (10 mW cm2) for 165 min prior to annealing.
PS, PCDTBT, and PTB7 blend films were annealed at 140 1C for 60 min, and P3HT and DPP-TT-T blend films were annealed at 140 1C for 6 min. Film
thicknesses vary from 70 to 120 nm and are identical for each dark and light polymer film pair.249 Reprinted with permission from ref. 249. Copyright
2014, American Chemical Society.
of inverted PTB7/PC71BM solar cells preserved 95% of its original The microscopy images of ITO/MoOx/PCDTBT/PC71BM/TiOx/
value, while the PCE of the conventional OSCs preserved only Al, ITO/TiOx/PCDTBT/PC71BM/MoOx/Al, TiOx/Al and MoOx/Al
30% of its original value. Brabec et al.265 synthesized a new star- after aging of 100 h are shown in Fig. 32. It was found that the
shaped small molecule donor N(Ph-2T-DCN-Et)3, and compared formation of the bubble-like features, which reduced the
the air stability of inverted and conventional OSCs based on charge collection at the Al electrode, was linked to the presence
N(Ph-2T-DCN-Et)3:PC71BM. As a result, the PCE of inverted OSCs of hydroxyl groups in the TiOx layer (electron buffer layer). In
preserved 70% of its original value after storage in air for 360 h. contrast, the inverted OSCs with MoOx did not exhibit bubble-
In contrast, the PCE of the conventional OSCs preserved only 5% like features, attributed to the much better air stability than
of its original value. These studies changed the positions of the that of the conventional OSCs.
anode and the cathode and substituted the low WF electrode
with a high WF electrode on the top surface of the active layer.
This inverted geometry is more stable than conventional geometry 3.4. Optimizing buffer layers
due to less reactivity of the top electrode with oxygen and water. 3.4.1. Hole transport layers. PEDOT:PSS is the most widely
In-depth research for the much better air stability of used hole transport layer, while it is seriously unstable with air or
inverted geometry compared to conventional geometry was also mechanical stress. In addition, PEDOT:PSS suffers from its
carried out. Akimoto et al.266 investigated the charge dynamics strong acidity (pH = 1–2), which will etch the ITO electrode
of SubPc/C60 planar solar cells with conventional and inverted increasing the movability of In. Employing modified PEDOT:PSS,
geometries during the degradation in ambient air. As shown in metal oxide, graphene oxide (GO) and organic/polymer materials
Fig. 31, the features of transient photocurrent of the conventional to replace PEDOT:PSS can significantly increase the stability
device were ascribed to the aggravation of trap (deteriorated (Fig. 33).274–276 The photovoltaic properties of devices with
bathocuproine (BCP)) mediated recombination with increasing
aging time. In contrast, for inverted structure, the trap mediated
recombination was significantly suppressed, indicated by the
absence of the transient peak after turn-on and pulse intensity
dependent turn-off traces in the transient photocurrent. The active
layer and the BCP layer were well protected from penetration of
oxygen and water by the air stable MoO3 layer. As a result, for
the conventional devices, it only took 44 h for the PCE to
decay to 16% of its initial value. In contrast, the PCE of the
inverted devices preserved 89% of its original value after Fig. 31 The absolute transient photocurrent of conventional (a) and
storage in air for 96 h. Yoo et al.267 carried out a separate inverted devices (b) with different aging times.266 Reprinted with permission
experiment to investigate the air degradation of OSCs. from ref. 266. Copyright 2015, American Chemical Society.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
shown in Fig. 37, the ZnO device exhibited higher current density
than the fresh sample at low bias, due to the oxygen-induced trapped
states which could increase the probability of trap-assisted recombi-
nation. Contrastively, the ZnO/PEIE device maintained small current
density at low bias after the stability test. The PEIE layer could
passivate the ZnO layer and suppress the oxidation of the ZnO layer
Fig. 37 Dark current density–voltage characteristics for fresh and 6
which was the reason for the increased air stability. In addition to month aged samples.319 Reprinted with permission from ref. 319. Copy-
the modification of ZnO, the substitution of ZnO by the electron right 2015, American Chemical Society.
transport polymer (such as PEI and DPP-based polymers) is another
strategy to increase the air stability.325–327
Insufficient photostability is another shortcoming of OSCs stability test. The molecular structures of donor and acceptor
with the ZnO layer.328–333 Olson et al.329 employed phosphonic materials are also shown in Chart 4.
acids (PAs) to modify the interface of the ZnO layer. The Employing stable metal and alloy,336–339 metal nanowire
chemical nature of the ZnO surface exhibited the influence on (NW)340–342 and modified metal NW343–350 as the transparent
device photostability, specifically the presence of interstitial zinc electrode is an effective strategy to increase the mechanical stability.
(Zni) defects at the surface which can absorb oxygen and induce For example, Yun et al.339 fabricated flexible PTB7-F20/PC71BM solar
the photo-oxidation reaction of the adjacent organic active layer. cells with the ZnO/AgOx TCE on the polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
PA modification of the ZnO layer could eliminate or passivate substrate. As shown in Fig. 39a, the DR/R0 of the electrodes was
these defects. As a result, the PCE of P3HT/ICBA solar cells with measured as a function of the bending radius when the electrodes
the PA-modified ZnO layer preserved 73% of its original value were exposed to high compressive stresses induced by mechanical
after illumination for 640 h, whereas the reference solar cells bending of the PET substrates. The ZnO/AgOx electrode exhibited
preserved only 38% of its original value. Wu et al.330 modified small resistance changes of 1.33% even after being bent with a
the surface of the ZnO layer with an ultrathin layer of Al. The bending radius of 2.8 mm. However, DR/R0 of the reference ITO
diode parameters suggested that the reference solar cells with electrode dramatically increased to 35% at the same bending radius,
the ZnO layer experienced a dramatic increase in their reverse as a result of the formation and propagation of microscopic cracks
saturation current upon illumination due to a decrease in the in a direction perpendicular to the compressive load (Fig. 39b). Thus,
barrier height. The device with the Al modified ZnO layer employing the ZnO/AgOx electrode instead of the reference ITO
experienced a much less change in its diode parameters before electrode could increase the mechanical stability of flexible OSCs.
and after photoaging, due to its lower surface WF and deeper Kang et al.341 used more soft Ag NWs as the transparent electrode to
valence band maximum. As a result, the PCE of P3HT/PC61BM replace ITO. After being bent 1000 times with a bending strain of
solar cells with the ZnO/Al layer preserved 82% of its original B2.0%, the Ag NW electrode showed only a slight increase in the
value after illumination for 8 h. In contrast, the reference solar DR/R0 (3.3%), whereas that of the reference ITO electrode dramati-
cell preserved 69% of its original value. cally increased (68.8%). As a result, the PCE of PTB7/PC71BM solar
cells with the Ag NW electrode preserved 98% of its original value
3.5. Using stable electrodes after 1000 bending cycles. In contrast, the reference solar cells with
ITO and Al are the most widely used transparent electrode the ITO electrode preserved only 22% of its original value. In
(TCE) and back electrode in OSCs, respectively. However, they addition to directly using Ag NWs as the electrode, modified Ag
are seriously unstable with mechanical stress, irradiation and NWs as the electrode are also used. Kim et al.345 created a flexible
air. Employing transparent materials (such as metal and alloy, electrode based on the conductive polymer (CP)–AgNW composite
metal nanowire, graphene, polymer and modified ITO) instead which was fully embedded in colorless polyimide (cPI). Fig. 40
of ITO and stable metals (such as Ag, gold (Au) and Cu) instead shows the DR/R0 in response to outward (tensile stress) or inward
of Al can significantly increase the stability (Fig. 38).334,335 The (compressive stress) bending as a function of the bending
photovoltaic properties of devices with different transparent/ radius. The (CP)-AgNW/cPI electrode exhibited good mechanical
back electrodes before and after the stability tests are listed in stability (only a small increase (o10%) in resistance when it was
Table 9, in which the DR/R0 is defined as the change in the bent to a radius of 40 mm). PTB7-TH/PC71BM solar cells based on
sheet resistance after the stability test/resistance before the this composite electrode therefore offered a very stable performance,
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
with a PCE loss of not more than 5% when it was folded at a radius vinced that Ag was more stable than ITO under ambient conditions.
of 40 mm. This high mechanical flexibility originated from the Similar to the substitution of transparent electrodes, using
enlarged interfacial area between AgNWs and cPI, and good adhe- stable metals (such as Ag, Au and Cu) instead of Al as back
sion of cPI to the CP and AgNWs. Lee et al.350 fabricated a AgNW– electrodes is an effective strategy to increase the air stability.35,361–365
graphene hybrid TCE by dry-transferring a CVD-grown monolayer For example, Kim et al.362 replaced the back electrode Al with air
graphene onto a AgNW TCE. Within the first few bending cycles with stable Ag. The PTB7/PC71BM solar cells with Ag exhibited higher
a bending radius of 30 mm, the ITO TCE began to crack, resulting PCE than the reference solar cells with Al (8.0% vs. 7.1%). More
in a sharp increase in sheet resistance. In contrast, the sheet importantly, Ag based devices exhibited better air stability due to the
resistance of the AgNW–graphene–polyethylene naphthalate low reactivity of Ag with water or oxygen. As a result, the PCE of
(PEN) TCE remained unchanged after more than 10 000 bending PTB7/PC71BM solar cells with the Ag back electrode preserved 96%
cycles with the same bending radius, indicating that the AgNW– of its original value after being stored in air for 170 h. In contrast, the
graphene hybrid TCE exhibited excellent mechanical flexibility. reference solar cells with the Al back electrode preserved 75% of its
Besides stable metal based materials, graphene351,352 and original value. Emrick et al.35 employed Au as the back electrode of
PEDOT:PSS353,354 also can be used as transparent electrodes to PTB7-TH/PC71BM solar cells. Thanks to the new and effective
increase the mechanical stability. For example, Zheng et al.352 electron buffer layer which could lower down the WF of the
fabricated a graphene-based composite transparent electrode Au/active layer interface, the device exhibited a high PCE of 8.6%
to replace ITO and used in OSCs. After 1000 bending cycles, which was the highest report for OSCs with the Au back electrode.
only ca. 5% increase in the resistance of the graphene-based After being stored in air for 24 h, the Au covered OSCs showed
TCE was observed, and no cracks appeared. In contrast, the outstanding air stability (preserved 99% of its original value).
resistance of the traditional ITO TCE increased rapidly under
bending due to crack formation.
In addition to mechanical stability, photostability355,356 and air 3.6. Encapsulation
stability357–360 also can be increased by using a stable transparent Employing organic, inorganic and organic–inorganic complex
electrode. For example, Katz et al.355 used Ag as the transparent materials to encapsulate OSCs is an effective strategy to
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Fig. 42 (a) OSCs were fabricated on top of the fused silica glass substrate. The
multilayer photonic structure was deposited on top of the electrical structure
saving the silver contacts. (b) SEM cross-sectional micrograph of the ML-ST. In
this particular case instead on a glass substrate, the structure was grown on a
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
irradiation, heating and mechanical stress. More importantly, promotion of uniform standards of stability tests, e.g. ISOS protocols;
this review highlighted the recent developments in strategies to (c) design of a polymer donor with balanced crystallinity/amorphism
increase stability of organic solar cells (a polymer donor/fullerene and rigidity/flexibility to simultaneously increase photo/air, thermal
acceptor is used as the model system and shown in Fig. 44): and mechanical stabilities; (d) increasing the PCE of OSCs based on
(I) Strategies to increase photo- or photo/air stability: the polymer with cleavable side chains and photo/air stable units;
employing cleavable side chains and photo/air stable units on (e) using non-fullerene acceptors instead of PCBM for better photo/
the polymer; increasing polymer crystallinity and decreasing air, thermal and mechanical stabilities; (f) increasing the PCE of
fullerene crystallinity; decreasing defects/traps in the active OSCs without high BP solvent additives and thermal or solvent
layer; and decreasing oxygen permeation to the active layer. annealing; (g) employing advanced encapsulation technologies in
(II) Strategies to increase air stability: decreasing oxygen permea- OSCs. So far, OSCs have already exhibited the PCEs of exceeding
tion and water ingress into the active layer; using electrodes which 10%, and increasing the stability of OSCs will provide a great
exhibit low reactivity with oxygen and water; employing charge opportunity to realize future industrial manufacture.
transport layers with good inoxidizability, low hydroscopicity and
neutral PH; and changing the device geometry.
(III) Strategies to increase thermal stability: decreasing full- Abbreviations
erene crystallinity; increasing Tg of the polymer; employing a
cross-linkable polymer/fullerene or adding a cross-linker; 2T Bithiophene
removing residual solvents in the active layer; and forming a Z/Z0 The ratio of PCE after and before the stability
stable D/A interface and an active layer/electrode interface. test
(IV) Strategies to increase mechanical stability: increasing Ag Silver
polymer flexibility and entanglement but decreasing polymer Al Aluminium
crystallinity; forming a stable D/A interface; increasing layer/ AM Air mass
layer adhesion; and increasing the flexibility of encapsulated APS 4-Phenothiazin-10-yl-anisole
materials. Au Gold
In order to achieve high-efficiency and high-stability OSCs for BABP Bis-azide cross-linking reagent
future industrial manufacture, some research areas of device BCP Bathocuproine
stability may deserve further attention in the future: (a) in-depth BDT Benzodithiophene
investigation of the device degradation mechanisms with oxygen, BHJ Bulk heterojunction
water, irradiation, heating and mechanical stress; (b) setup and BT Benzothiadiazole
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
3 L. Dou, Y. Liu, Z. Hong, G. Li and Y. Yang, Chem. Rev., 31 W. Ma, C. Yang, X. Gong, K. Lee and A. J. Heeger, Adv.
2015, 115, 12633–12665. Funct. Mater., 2005, 15, 1617–1622.
4 J. Peet, A. J. Heeger and G. C. Bazan, Acc. Chem. Res., 2009, 32 Z. He, C. Zhong, X. Huang, W.-Y. Wong, H. Wu, L. Chen,
42, 1700–1708. S. Su and Y. Cao, Adv. Mater., 2011, 23, 4636–4643.
5 C. J. Brabec, M. Heeney, I. McCulloch and J. Nelson, Chem. 33 S.-H. Liao, H.-J. Jhuo, Y.-S. Cheng and S.-A. Chen, Adv.
Soc. Rev., 2011, 40, 1185–1199. Mater., 2013, 25, 4766–4771.
6 Y.-J. Cheng, S.-H. Yang and C.-S. Hsu, Chem. Rev., 2009, 34 Y. B. Yuan, T. J. Reece, P. Sharma, S. Poddar, S. Ducharme,
109, 5868–5923. A. Gruverman, Y. Yang and J. S. Huang, Nat. Mater., 2011,
7 F. Liu, Y. Gu, X. Shen, S. Ferdous, H.-W. Wang and T. P. 10, 296–302.
Russell, Prog. Polym. Sci., 2013, 38, 1990–2052. 35 Z. A. Page, Y. Liu, V. V. Duzhko, T. P. Russell and T. Emrick,
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
8 X. Guo, A. Facchetti and T. J. Marks, Chem. Rev., 2014, 114, Science, 2014, 346, 441–444.
8943–9021. 36 Y. Zhou, C. Fuentes-Hernandez, J. Shim, J. Meyer, A. J.
9 L. Lu, T. Zheng, Q. Wu, A. M. Schneider, D. Zhao and L. Yu, Giordano, H. Li, P. Winget, T. Papadopoulos, H. Cheun,
Chem. Rev., 2015, 115, 12666–12731. J. Kim, M. Fenoll, A. Dindar, W. Haske, E. Najafabadi,
10 Y. F. Li, Acc. Chem. Res., 2012, 45, 723–733. T. M. Khan, H. Sojoudi, S. Barlow, S. Graham, J.-L. Brédas,
11 L. Ye, S. Zhang, L. Huo, M. Zhang and J. Hou, Acc. Chem. S. R. Marder, A. Kahn and B. Kippelen, Science, 2012, 336,
Res., 2014, 47, 1595–1603. 327–332.
12 H.-Y. Chen, J. Hou, S. Zhang, Y. Liang, G. Yang, 37 Z. He, B. Xiao, F. Liu, H. Wu, Y. Yang, S. Xiao, C. Wang,
Y. Yang, L. Yu, Y. Wu and G. Li, Nat. Photonics, 2009, 3, T. P. Russell and Y. Cao, Nat. Photonics, 2015, 9, 174–179.
649–653. 38 T. B. Yang, M. Wang, C. H. Duan, X. W. Hu, L. Huang,
13 Y. Liang, Z. Xu, J. Xia, S.-T. Tsai, Y. Wu, G. Li, C. Ray and J. B. Peng, F. Huang and X. Gong, Energy Environ. Sci.,
L. Yu, Adv. Mater., 2010, 22, E135–E138. 2012, 5, 8208–8214.
14 H. Shang, H. Fan, Y. Liu, W. Hu, Y. Li and X. Zhan, Adv. 39 H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, C.-K. Mai, S. D. Collins, G. C. Bazan, T.-Q.
Mater., 2011, 23, 1554–1557. Nguyen and A. J. Heeger, Adv. Mater., 2015, 27, 1767–1773.
15 Y. J. He, H. Y. Chen, J. H. Hou and Y. F. Li, J. Am. Chem. 40 J. You, L. Dou, K. Yoshimura, T. Kato, K. Ohya, T. Moriarty,
Soc., 2010, 132, 1377–1382. K. Emery, C.-C. Chen, J. Gao, G. Li and Y. Yang, Nat.
16 Y. Lin and X. Zhan, Acc. Chem. Res., 2015, DOI: 10.1021/ Commun., 2013, 4, 1446.
acs.accounts.5b00363. 41 L. Zuo, C.-C. Chueh, Y.-X. Xu, K.-S. Chen, Y. Zang, C.-Z. Li,
17 Y. Lin, J. Wang, Z.-G. Zhang, H. Bai, Y. Li, D. Zhu and H. Chen and A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Mater., 2014, 26, 6778–6784.
X. Zhan, Adv. Mater., 2015, 27, 1170–1174. 42 W. Li, A. Furlan, K. H. Hendriks, M. M. Wienk and
18 T. Ameri, T. Heumuller, J. Min, N. Li, G. Matt, U. Scherf R. A. J. Janssen, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013, 135, 5529–5532.
and C. J. Brabec, Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 1796–1801. 43 J. Huang, J. H. Carpenter, C.-Z. Li, J.-S. Yu, H. Ade and
19 P. P. Khlyabich, B. Burkhart and B. C. Thompson, J. Am. A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Mater., 2016, 28, 967–974.
Chem. Soc., 2012, 134, 9074–9077. 44 A. R. B. M. Yusoff, D. Kim, H. P. Kim, F. K. Shneider, W. J.
20 L. Yang, H. Zhou, S. C. Price and W. You, J. Am. Chem. Soc., da Silva and J. Jang, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 303–316.
2012, 134, 5432–5435. 45 B. Azzopardi, C. J. M. Emmott, A. Urbina, F. C. Krebs, J. Mutale
21 L. Lu, T. Xu, W. Chen, E. S. Landry and L. Yu, Nat. and J. Nelson, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 3741–3753.
Photonics, 2014, 8, 716–722. 46 L. Zuo, S. Zhang, H. Li and H. Chen, Adv. Mater., 2015, 27,
22 Y. Yang, W. Chen, L. Dou, W.-H. Chang, H.-S. Duan, 6983–6989.
B. Bob, G. Li and Y. Yang, Nat. Photonics, 2015, 9, 190–198. 47 S. Berny, N. Blouin, A. Distler, H.-J. Egelhaaf, M. Krompiec,
23 J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, J. Fang, K. Lu, Z. Wang, W. Ma and A. Lohr, O. R. Lozman, G. E. Morse, L. Nanson, A. Pron,
Z. Wei, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2015, 137, 8176–8183. T. Sauermann, N. Seidler, S. Tierney, P. Tiwana, M. Wagner
24 P. Cheng, Y. Li and X. Zhan, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, and H. Wilson, Adv. Sci., 2015, DOI: 10.1002/advs.201500342.
2005–2011. 48 M. Jorgensen, K. Norrman, S. A. Gevorgyan, T. Tromholt,
25 P. Cheng, C. Yan, Y. Li, W. Ma and X. Zhan, Energy Environ. B. Andreasen and F. C. Krebs, Adv. Mater., 2012, 24, 580–612.
Sci., 2015, 8, 2357–2364. 49 M. Jørgensen, K. Norrman and F. C. Krebs, Sol. Energy
26 P. Cheng, L. Ye, X. Zhao, J. Hou, Y. Li and X. Zhan, Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2008, 92, 686–714.
Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1351–1356. 50 R. Roesch, T. Faber, E. von Hauff, T. M. Brown, M. Lira-
27 P. Cheng, J. Hou, Y. Li and X. Zhan, Adv. Energy Mater., Cantu and H. Hoppe, Adv. Energy Mater., 2015, 5, 1501407.
2014, 4, 1301349. 51 V. Turkovic, S. Engmann, D. A. M. Egbe, M. Himmerlich,
28 W. Ma, J. R. Tumbleston, L. Ye, C. Wang, J. Hou and S. Krischok, G. Gobsch and H. Hoppe, Sol. Energy Mater.
H. Ade, Adv. Mater., 2014, 26, 4234–4241. Sol. Cells, 2014, 120(part B), 654–668.
29 G. Li, V. Shrotriya, J. S. Huang, Y. Yao, T. Moriarty, 52 N. Grossiord, J. M. Kroon, R. Andriessen and
K. Emery and Y. Yang, Nat. Mater., 2005, 4, 864–868. P. W. M. Blom, Org. Electron., 2012, 13, 432–456.
30 Y. Sun, G. C. Welch, W. L. Leong, C. J. Takacs, G. C. Bazan 53 J. U. Lee, J. W. Jung, J. W. Jo and W. H. Jo, J. Mater. Chem.,
and A. J. Heeger, Nat. Mater., 2012, 11, 44–48. 2012, 22, 24265–24283.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
54 H. Cao, W. He, Y. Mao, X. Lin, K. Ishikawa, J. H. Dickerson 75 J. Adams, M. Salvador, L. Lucera, S. Langner, G. D.
and W. P. Hess, J. Power Sources, 2014, 264, 168–183. Spyropoulos, F. W. Fecher, M. M. Voigt, S. A. Dowland,
55 S. A. Gevorgyan, M. V. Madsen, B. Roth, M. Corazza, M. Hösel, A. Osvet, H.-J. Egelhaaf and C. J. Brabec, Adv. Energy Mater.,
R. R. Søndergaard, M. Jørgensen and F. C. Krebs, Adv. Energy 2015, 5, 1501065.
Mater., 2016, 6, 1501208. 76 K. Norrman, S. A. Gevorgyan and F. C. Krebs, ACS Appl.
56 A. K. K. Kyaw, D. H. Wang, V. Gupta, J. Zhang, S. Chand, Mater. Interfaces, 2009, 1, 102–112.
G. C. Bazan and A. J. Heeger, Adv. Mater., 2013, 25, 2397–2402. 77 H. Klumbies, M. Karl, M. Hermenau, R. Rösch, M. Seeland,
57 A. Guerrero, H. Heidari, T. S. Ripolles, A. Kovalenko, H. Hoppe, L. Müller-Meskamp and K. Leo, Sol. Energy
M. Pfannmöller, S. Bals, L.-D. Kauffmann, J. Bisquert and Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 120(part B), 685–690.
G. Garcia-Belmonte, Adv. Energy Mater., 2015, 5, 1401997. 78 T. S. Glen, N. W. Scarratt, H. Yi, A. Iraqi, T. Wang,
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
58 F. C. Krebs and K. Norrman, Prog. Photovoltaics, 2007, 15, J. Kingsley, A. R. Buckley, D. G. Lidzey and A. M. Donald,
697–712. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2015, 140, 25–32.
59 C. J. Schaffer, C. M. Palumbiny, M. A. Niedermeier, 79 K. Feron, T. J. Nagle, L. J. Rozanski, B. B. Gong and
C. Jendrzejewski, G. Santoro, S. V. Roth and P. Müller- C. J. Fell, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 109, 169–177.
Buschbaum, Adv. Mater., 2013, 25, 6760–6764. 80 S. Züfle, M. T. Neukom, S. Altazin, M. Zinggeler,
60 D. H. Wang, A. Pron, M. Leclerc and A. J. Heeger, Adv. M. Chrapa, T. Offermans and B. Ruhstaller, Adv. Energy
Funct. Mater., 2013, 23, 1297–1304. Mater., 2015, 5, 1500835.
61 N. K. Zawacka, T. R. Andersen, J. W. Andreasen, L. H. 81 A. J. Parnell, A. J. Cadby, A. D. F. Dunbar, G. L. Roberts,
Rossander, H. F. Dam, M. Jorgensen and F. C. Krebs, A. Plumridge, R. M. Dalgliesh, M. W. A. Skoda and
J. Mater. Chem. A, 2014, 2, 18644–18654. R. A. L. Jones, J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys., 2016,
62 A. Tournebize, A. Rivaton, H. Peisert and T. Chassé, J. Phys. 54, 141–146.
Chem. C, 2015, 119, 9142–9148. 82 K. Kawano, R. Pacios, D. Poplavskyy, J. Nelson, D. D. C.
63 W. Kim, J. K. Kim, E. Kim, T. K. Ahn, D. H. Wang and Bradley and J. R. Durrant, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells,
J. H. Park, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2015, 119, 5954–5961. 2006, 90, 3520–3530.
64 X. Wang, H.-J. Egelhaaf, H.-G. Mack, H. Azimi, C. J. Brabec, A. J. 83 F. C. Krebs, S. A. Gevorgyan and J. Alstrup, J. Mater. Chem.,
Meixner and D. Zhang, Adv. Energy Mater., 2014, 4, 1400497. 2009, 19, 5442–5451.
65 A. Sharma, G. Andersson and D. A. Lewis, Phys. Chem. 84 K. Norrman, M. V. Madsen, S. A. Gevorgyan and F. C.
Chem. Phys., 2011, 13, 4381–4387. Krebs, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, 16883–16892.
66 S. T. Lee, Z. Q. Gao and L. S. Hung, Appl. Phys. Lett., 1999, 85 V. S. Balderrama, M. Estrada, P. L. Han, P. Granero,
75, 1404–1406. J. Pallarés, J. Ferré-Borrull and L. F. Marsal, Sol. Energy
67 E. Voroshazi, G. Uytterhoeven, K. Cnops, T. Conard, Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 125, 155–163.
P. Favia, H. Bender, R. Muller and D. Cheyns, ACS Appl. 86 R. Pacios, A. J. Chatten, K. Kawano, J. R. Durrant,
Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7, 618–623. D. D. C. Bradley and J. Nelson, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2006,
68 R. Rosch, D. M. Tanenbaum, M. Jorgensen, M. Seeland, 16, 2117–2126.
M. Barenklau, M. Hermenau, E. Voroshazi, M. T. Lloyd, 87 E. Voroshazi, I. Cardinaletti, T. Conard and B. P. Rand,
Y. Galagan, B. Zimmermann, U. Wurfel, M. Hosel, H. F. Adv. Energy Mater., 2014, 4, 1400848.
Dam, S. A. Gevorgyan, S. Kudret, W. Maes, L. Lutsen, 88 L. Córcoles, J. Abad, J. Padilla and A. Urbina, Sol. Energy
D. Vanderzande, R. Andriessen, G. Teran-Escobar, M. Lira- Mater. Sol. Cells, 2015, 141, 423–428.
Cantu, A. Rivaton, G. Y. Uzunoglu, D. Germack, B. Andreasen, 89 M. V. Madsen, T. Tromholt, K. Norrman and F. C. Krebs,
M. V. Madsen, K. Norrman, H. Hoppe and F. C. Krebs, Energy Adv. Energy Mater., 2013, 3, 424–427.
Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 6521–6540. 90 S. Chambon, A. Rivaton, J.-L. Gardette and M. Firon,
69 R. Franke, B. Maennig, A. Petrich and M. Pfeiffer, Sol. Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2011, 96, 1149–1158.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2008, 92, 732–735. 91 A. Rivaton, S. Chambon, M. Manceau, J.-L. Gardette,
70 M. Glatthaar, M. Riede, N. Keegan, K. Sylvester-Hvid, N. Lemaı̂tre and S. Guillerez, Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2010,
B. Zimmermann, M. Niggemann, A. Hinsch and A. Gombert, 95, 278–284.
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2007, 91, 390–393. 92 M. Manceau, A. Rivaton, J.-L. Gardette, S. Guillerez and
71 K. Norrman and F. C. Krebs, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, N. Lemaı̂tre, Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2009, 94, 898–907.
2006, 90, 213–227. 93 A. Tournebize, P.-O. Bussière, P. Wong-Wah-Chung,
72 M. O. Reese, A. M. Nardes, B. L. Rupert, R. E. Larsen, D. C. S. Thérias, A. Rivaton, J.-L. Gardette, S. Beaupré and
Olson, M. T. Lloyd, S. E. Shaheen, D. S. Ginley, G. Rumbles M. Leclerc, Adv. Energy Mater., 2013, 3, 478–487.
and N. Kopidakis, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2010, 20, 3476–3483. 94 I. Fraga Domı́nguez, P. D. Topham, P.-O. Bussière,
73 J. Schafferhans, A. Baumann, A. Wagenpfahl, C. Deibel and D. Bégué and A. Rivaton, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2015, 119,
V. Dyakonov, Org. Electron., 2010, 11, 1693–1700. 2166–2176.
74 A. Seemann, T. Sauermann, C. Lungenschmied, O. Armbruster, 95 A. Tournebize, P.-O. Bussière, A. Rivaton, J.-L. Gardette,
S. Bauer, H. J. Egelhaaf and J. Hauch, Sol. Energy, 2011, 85, H. Medlej, R. C. Hiorns, C. Dagron-Lartigau, F. C. Krebs
1238–1249. and K. Norrman, Chem. Mater., 2013, 25, 4522–4528.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
96 R. Grisorio, G. Allegretta, P. Mastrorilli and G. P. Suranna, 118 O. Backe, C. Lindqvist, A. Diaz de Zerio Mendaza, S. Gustafsson,
Macromolecules, 2011, 44, 7977–7986. E. Wang, M. R. Andersson, C. Muller and E. Olsson, Nanoscale,
97 F. Deschler, A. De Sio, E. von Hauff, P. Kutka, 2015, 7, 8451–8456.
T. Sauermann, H.-J. Egelhaaf, J. Hauch and E. Da Como, 119 C. Lindqvist, A. Sanz-Velasco, E. Wang, O. Backe,
Adv. Funct. Mater., 2012, 22, 1461–1469. S. Gustafsson, E. Olsson, M. R. Andersson and C. Muller,
98 C. H. Peters, I. T. Sachs-Quintana, W. R. Mateker, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 7174–7180.
T. Heumueller, J. Rivnay, R. Noriega, Z. M. Beiley, E. T. Hoke, 120 J. Jo, S.-S. Kim, S.-I. Na, B.-K. Yu and D.-Y. Kim, Adv. Funct.
A. Salleo and M. D. McGehee, Adv. Mater., 2012, 24, 663–668. Mater., 2009, 19, 866–874.
99 T. M. Clarke, C. Lungenschmied, J. Peet, N. Drolet, 121 A. Swinnen, I. Haeldermans, M. vande Ven, J. D’Haen,
K. Sunahara, A. Furube and A. J. Mozer, Adv. Energy Mater., G. Vanhoyland, S. Aresu, M. D’Olieslaeger and J. Manca,
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
M. Jorgensen, S. A. Gevorgyan, S. Kudret, W. Maes, L. Lutsen, 150 W. R. Mateker, T. Heumueller, R. Cheacharoen, I. T. Sachs-
D. Vanderzande, U. Wurfel, R. Andriessen, R. Rosch, Quintana, M. D. McGehee, J. Warnan, P. M. Beaujuge,
H. Hoppe, G. Teran-Escobar, M. Lira-Cantu, A. Rivaton, X. Liu and G. C. Bazan, Chem. Mater., 2015, 27, 6345–6353.
G. Y. Uzunoglu, D. Germack, B. Andreasen, M. V. Madsen, 151 Y. W. Soon, H. Cho, J. Low, H. Bronstein, I. McCulloch and
K. Norrman and F. C. Krebs, RSC Adv., 2012, 2, 882–893. J. R. Durrant, Chem. Commun., 2013, 49, 1291–1293.
135 S. A. Gevorgyan, M. Corazza, M. V. Madsen, G. Bardizza, 152 A. D. Printz, S. Savagatrup, D. J. Burke, T. N. Purdy and
A. Pozza, H. Müllejans, J. C. Blakesley, G. F. A. Dibb, F. A. D. J. Lipomi, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 13635–13643.
Castro, J. F. Trigo, C. M. Guillén, J. R. Herrero, P. Morvillo, 153 D. J. Lipomi, H. Chong, M. Vosgueritchian, J. Mei and
M. G. Maglione, C. Minarini, F. Roca, S. Cros, C. Seraine, Z. Bao, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2012, 107, 355–365.
C. H. Law, P. S. Tuladhar, J. R. Durrant and F. C. Krebs, 154 C. Müller, Chem. Mater., 2015, 27, 2740–2754.
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
Polym. Degrad. Stab., 2014, 109, 162–170. 155 J. Teetsov and M. Anne Fox, J. Mater. Chem., 1999, 9,
136 M. Corazza, F. C. Krebs and S. A. Gevorgyan, Sol. Energy 2117–2122.
Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 130, 99–106. 156 L. Kinder, J. Kanicki and P. Petroff, Synth. Met., 2004, 146,
137 D. Angmo, P. M. Sommeling, R. Gupta, M. Hösel, S. A. 181–185.
Gevorgyan, J. M. Kroon, G. U. Kulkarni and F. C. Krebs, 157 M. J. Banach, R. H. Friend and H. Sirringhaus,
Adv. Eng. Mater., 2014, 16, 976–987. Macromolecules, 2003, 36, 2838–2844.
138 D. Angmo, I. Gonzalez-Valls, S. Veenstra, W. Verhees, 158 C. Müller, M. Esmaeili, C. Riekel, D. W. Breiby and
S. Sapkota, S. Schiefer, B. Zimmermann, Y. Galagan, O. Inganäs, Polymer, 2013, 54, 805–811.
J. Sweelssen, M. Lira-Cantu, R. Andriessen, J. M. Kroon 159 C. Muller, J. Bergqvist, K. Vandewal, K. Tvingstedt, A. S.
and F. C. Krebs, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2013, 130, 944–954. Anselmo, R. Magnusson, M. I. Alonso, E. Moons, H. Arwin,
139 D. Angmo, S. A. Gevorgyan, T. T. Larsen-Olsen, R. R. M. Campoy-Quiles and O. Inganas, J. Mater. Chem., 2011,
Søndergaard, M. Hösel, M. Jørgensen, R. Gupta, G. U. 21, 10676–10684.
Kulkarni and F. C. Krebs, Org. Electron., 2013, 14, 984–994. 160 Y.-H. Lee, W.-C. Chen, C.-J. Chiang, K.-C. Kau, W.-S. Liou,
140 B. Andreasen, D. M. Tanenbaum, M. Hermenau, E. Voroshazi, Y.-P. Lee, L. Wang and C.-A. Dai, Nano Energy, 2015, 13,
M. T. Lloyd, Y. Galagan, B. Zimmernann, S. Kudret, W. Maes, 103–116.
L. Lutsen, D. Vanderzande, U. Wurfel, R. Andriessen, R. Rosch, 161 D. Gao, J. Hollinger and D. S. Seferos, ACS Nano, 2012, 6,
H. Hoppe, G. Teran-Escobar, M. Lira-Cantu, A. Rivaton, G. Y. 7114–7121.
Uzunoglu, D. S. Germack, M. Hosel, H. F. Dam, M. Jorgensen, 162 Y. Lin, J. A. Lim, Q. Wei, S. C. B. Mannsfeld, A. L. Briseno
S. A. Gevorgyan, M. V. Madsen, E. Bundgaard, F. C. Krebs and and J. J. Watkins, Chem. Mater., 2012, 24, 622–632.
K. Norrman, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 11780–11799. 163 J. Kong, S. Song, M. Yoo, G. Y. Lee, O. Kwon, J. K. Park,
141 T. R. Andersen, H. F. Dam, B. Andreasen, M. Hösel, M. V. H. Back, G. Kim, S. H. Lee, H. Suh and K. Lee, Nat.
Madsen, S. A. Gevorgyan, R. R. Søndergaard, M. Jørgensen Commun., 2014, 5, 5688.
and F. C. Krebs, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 164 P. Papadopoulos, G. Floudas, C. Chi and G. Wegner,
120(part B), 735–743. J. Chem. Phys., 2004, 120, 2368–2374.
142 S. H. Kim, I.-W. Hwang, Y. Jin, S. Song, J. Moon, H. Suh 165 C. Bruner and R. Dauskardt, Macromolecules, 2014, 47,
and K. Lee, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2011, 95, 361–364. 1117–1121.
143 M. Manceau, E. Bundgaard, J. E. Carle, O. Hagemann, 166 E. Bundgaard, M. Helgesen, J. E. Carlé, F. C. Krebs and
M. Helgesen, R. Sondergaard, M. Jorgensen and M. Jørgensen, Macromol. Chem. Phys., 2013, 214, 1546–1558.
F. C. Krebs, J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21, 4132–4141. 167 M. Helgesen, M. V. Madsen, B. Andreasen, T. Tromholt,
144 J. E. Carle, M. Helgesen, M. V. Madsen, E. Bundgaard and J. W. Andreasen and F. C. Krebs, Polym. Chem., 2011, 2,
F. C. Krebs, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 1290–1297. 2536–2542.
145 T. I. Ryu, Y. Yoon, J.-H. Kim, D.-H. Hwang, M. J. Ko, 168 M. Manceau, M. Helgesen and F. C. Krebs, Polym. Degrad.
D.-K. Lee, J. Y. Kim, H. Kim, N.-G. Park, B. Kim and Stab., 2010, 95, 2666–2669.
H. J. Son, Macromolecules, 2014, 47, 6270–6280. 169 P. Verstappen, J. Kesters, L. D’Olieslaeger, J. Drijkoningen,
146 I. Constantinou, T.-H. Lai, D. Zhao, E. D. Klump, I. Cardinaletti, T. Vangerven, B. J. Bruijnaers,
J. J. Deininger, C. K. Lo, J. R. Reynolds and F. So, ACS R. E. M. Willems, J. D’Haen, J. V. Manca, L. Lutsen,
Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7, 4826–4832. D. J. M. Vanderzande and W. Maes, Macromolecules,
147 S. Wood, J. Wade, M. Shahid, E. Collado Fregoso, 2015, 48, 3873–3882.
D. D. C. Bradley, J. Durrant, M. Heeney and J.-S. Kim, 170 K. Sivula, C. K. Luscombe, B. C. Thompson and J. M. J.
Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 3222–3232. Fréchet, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 13988–13989.
148 T. Heumueller, W. R. Mateker, I. T. Sachs-Quintana, 171 C. H. Woo, B. C. Thompson, B. J. Kim, M. F. Toney and
K. Vandewal, J. A. Bartelt, T. M. Burke, T. Ameri, C. J. Brabec J. M. J. Fréchet, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2008, 130, 16324–16329.
and M. D. McGehee, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 2974–2980. 172 S. Ebadian, B. Gholamkhass, S. Shambayati, S. Holdcroft and
149 Y. W. Soon, S. Shoaee, R. S. Ashraf, H. Bronstein, B. C. P. Servati, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2010, 94, 2258–2264.
Schroeder, W. Zhang, Z. Fei, M. Heeney, I. McCulloch and 173 B. J. Kim, Y. Miyamoto, B. Ma and J. M. J. Fréchet, Adv.
J. R. Durrant, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2014, 24, 1474–1482. Funct. Mater., 2009, 19, 2273–2281.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
174 G. Griffini, J. D. Douglas, C. Piliego, T. W. Holcombe, 195 Y. Zhang, H.-L. Yip, O. Acton, S. K. Hau, F. Huang and
S. Turri, J. M. J. Fréchet and J. L. Mynar, Adv. Mater., A. K. Y. Jen, Chem. Mater., 2009, 21, 2598–2600.
2011, 23, 1660–1664. 196 S.-O. Kim, D. Sung Chung, H. Cha, J. Wan Jang, Y.-H. Kim,
175 J. E. Carle, B. Andreasen, T. Tromholt, M. V. Madsen, J.-W. Kang, Y.-S. Jeong, C. E. Park and S.-K. Kwon, Sol.
K. Norrman, M. Jorgensen and F. C. Krebs, J. Mater. Chem., Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2011, 95, 432–439.
2012, 22, 24417–24423. 197 A. Distler, T. Sauermann, H.-J. Egelhaaf, S. Rodman,
176 K. Yao, L. Chen, F. Li, P. Wang and Y. Chen, J. Phys. Chem. D. Waller, K.-S. Cheon, M. Lee and D. M. Guldi, Adv. Energy
C, 2012, 116, 714–721. Mater., 2014, 4, 1300693.
177 S. Khiev, L. Derue, G. Ayenew, H. Medlej, R. Brown, 198 Y.-J. Cheng, M.-H. Liao, C.-Y. Chang, W.-S. Kao, C.-E. Wu
L. Rubatat, R. C. Hiorns, G. Wantz and C. Dagron- and C.-S. Hsu, Chem. Mater., 2011, 23, 4056–4062.
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
Lartigau, Polym. Chem., 2013, 4, 4145–4150. 199 C.-Z. Li, S.-C. Chien, H.-L. Yip, C.-C. Chueh, F.-C. Chen,
178 C. P. Yau, S. Wang, N. D. Treat, Z. Fei, B. J. Tremolet de Y. Matsuo, E. Nakamura and A. K. Y. Jen, Chem. Commun.,
Villers, M. L. Chabinyc and M. Heeney, Adv. Energy Mater., 2011, 47, 10082–10084.
2015, 5, 1401228. 200 X. Meng, W. Zhang, Z. a. Tan, C. Du, C. Li, Z. Bo,
179 Y. Tang, L. Ji, R. Zhu, Z. Wei and B. Zhang, J. Phys. Chem. A, Y. Li, X. Yang, M. Zhen, F. Jiang, J. Zheng, T. Wang,
2005, 109, 11123–11126. L. Jiang, C. Shu and C. Wang, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48,
180 H. Waters, J. Kettle, S.-W. Chang, C.-J. Su, W.-R. Wu, 425–427.
U. S. Jeng, Y.-C. Tsai and M. Horie, J. Mater. Chem. A, 201 X. Meng, W. Zhang, Z. A. Tan, Y. Li, Y. Ma, T. Wang,
2013, 1, 7370–7378. L. Jiang, C. Shu and C. Wang, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2012, 22,
181 F. Ouhib, M. Tomassetti, J. Manca, F. Piersimoni, 2187–2193.
D. Spoltore, S. Bertho, H. Moons, R. Lazzaroni, 202 S. Chen, G. Ye, Z. Xiao and L. Ding, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013,
S. Desbief, C. Jerome and C. Detrembleur, Macromolecules, 1, 5562–5566.
2013, 46, 785–795. 203 Y. Lin and X. Zhan, Mater. Horiz., 2014, 1, 470–488.
182 J. E. Carlé, M. Helgesen, N. K. Zawacka, M. V. Madsen, 204 X. Zhan, A. Facchetti, S. Barlow, T. J. Marks, M. A. Ratner,
E. Bundgaard and F. C. Krebs, J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. M. R. Wasielewski and S. R. Marder, Adv. Mater., 2011, 23,
Phys., 2014, 52, 893–899. 268–284.
183 T. L. Nguyen, H. Choi, S.-J. Ko, M. A. Uddin, B. Walker, 205 J. E. Anthony, A. Facchetti, M. Heeney, S. R. Marder and
S. Yum, J.-E. Jeong, M. H. Yun, T. Shin, S. Hwang, J. Y. Kim X. Zhan, Adv. Mater., 2010, 22, 3876–3892.
and H. Y. Woo, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 3040–3051. 206 A. Facchetti, Mater. Today, 2013, 16, 123–132.
184 Z. Li, F. Wu, H. Lv, D. Yang, Z. Chen, X. Zhao and X. Yang, 207 P. Cheng, H. Bai, N. K. Zawacka, T. R. Andersen, W. Liu,
Adv. Mater., 2015, 27, 6999–7003. E. Bundgaard, M. Jørgensen, H. Chen, F. C. Krebs and
185 G. E. Morse, A. Tournebize, A. Rivaton, T. Chasse, X. Zhan, Adv. Sci., 2015, 2, 1500096.
C. Taviot-Gueho, N. Blouin, O. R. Lozman and S. Tierney, 208 Y. Lin, Z.-G. Zhang, H. Bai, J. Wang, Y. Yao, Y. Li, D. Zhu
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2015, 17, 11884–11897. and X. Zhan, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 610–616.
186 J. Kesters, S. Kudret, S. Bertho, N. Van den Brande, 209 S. Holliday, R. S. Ashraf, C. B. Nielsen, M. Kirkus,
M. Defour, B. Van Mele, H. Penxten, L. Lutsen, J. Manca, J. A. Röhr, C.-H. Tan, E. Collado-Fregoso, A.-C. Knall,
D. Vanderzande and W. Maes, Org. Electron., 2014, 15, J. R. Durrant, J. Nelson and I. McCulloch, J. Am. Chem.
549–562. Soc., 2015, 137, 898–904.
187 J. Kesters, P. Verstappen, J. Raymakers, W. Vanormelingen, 210 S. Li, W. Liu, M. Shi, J. Mai, T.-K. Lau, J.-H. Wan, X. Lu,
J. Drijkoningen, J. D’Haen, J. V. Manca, L. Lutsen, C.-Z. Li and H. Chen, Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 604.
D. J. M. Vanderzande and W. Maes, Chem. Mater., 2015, 211 T. Kim, J.-H. Kim, T. E. Kang, C. Lee, H. Kang, M. Shin,
27, 1332–1341. C. Wang, B. Ma, U. Jeong, T.-S. Kim and B. J. Kim, Nat.
188 S. Savagatrup, A. S. Makaram, D. J. Burke and D. J. Lipomi, Commun., 2015, 6, 8547.
Adv. Funct. Mater., 2014, 24, 1169–1181. 212 P. Cheng and X. Zhan, Mater. Horiz., 2015, 2, 462–485.
189 S. Savagatrup, A. D. Printz, D. Rodriquez and D. J. Lipomi, 213 T. Ameri, P. Khoram, J. Min and C. J. Brabec, Adv. Mater.,
Macromolecules, 2014, 47, 1981–1992. 2013, 25, 4245–4266.
190 S. Kirner, M. Sekita and D. M. Guldi, Adv. Mater., 2014, 26, 214 L. Lu, M. A. Kelly, W. You and L. Yu, Nat. Photonics, 2015, 9,
1482–1493. 491–500.
191 Y. He and Y. Li, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2011, 13, 215 P. P. Khlyabich, B. Burkhart, A. E. Rudenko and
1970–1983. B. C. Thompson, Polymer, 2013, 54, 5267–5298.
192 C.-Z. Li, H.-L. Yip and A. K. Y. Jen, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 216 Q. An, F. Zhang, J. Zhang, W. Tang, Z. Deng and B. Hu,
4161–4177. Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 281.
193 Y.-Y. Lai, Y.-J. Cheng and C. S. Hsu, Energy Environ. Sci., 217 D. He, X. Du, W. Zhang, Z. Xiao and L. Ding, J. Mater.
2014, 7, 1866–1883. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 4589–4594.
194 S. H. Park, C. Yang, S. Cowan, J. K. Lee, F. Wudl, K. Lee and 218 L. Derue, O. Dautel, A. Tournebize, M. Drees, H. Pan,
A. J. Heeger, J. Mater. Chem., 2009, 19, 5624–5628. S. Berthumeyrie, B. Pavageau, E. Cloutet, S. Chambon,
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
L. Hirsch, A. Rivaton, P. Hudhomme, A. Facchetti and 239 Y. Shi, L. Tan, L. Chen and Y. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. C,
G. Wantz, Adv. Mater., 2014, 26, 5831–5838. 2014, 2, 8054–8064.
219 J. W. Rumer, R. S. Ashraf, N. D. Eisenmenger, Z. Huang, 240 J. Kim, S. Lee, S. Nam, H. Lee, H. Kim and Y. Kim, ACS
I. Meager, C. B. Nielsen, B. C. Schroeder, M. L. Chabinyc Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2012, 4, 5300–5308.
and I. McCulloch, Adv. Energy Mater., 2015, 5, 1401426. 241 M. Sygletou, G. Kakavelakis, B. Paci, A. Generosi,
220 Y.-J. Cheng, C.-H. Hsieh, P.-J. Li and C.-S. Hsu, Adv. Funct. E. Kymakis and E. Stratakis, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces,
Mater., 2011, 21, 1723–1732. 2015, 7, 17756–17764.
221 A. Diacon, L. Derue, C. Lecourtier, O. Dautel, G. Wantz and 242 H. Park, K. Y. Lee, W. Kim, H.-W. Shin, D. H. Wang,
P. Hudhomme, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 7163–7167. T. K. Ahn and J. H. Park, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces,
222 C.-P. Chen, C.-Y. Huang and S.-C. Chuang, Adv. Funct. 2013, 5, 1612–1618.
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
Mater., 2015, 25, 207–213. 243 S. Bertho, B. Campo, F. Piersimoni, D. Spoltore, J. D’Haen,
223 N. Deb, R. R. Dasari, K. Moudgil, J. L. Hernandez, S. R. L. Lutsen, W. Maes, D. Vanderzande and J. Manca, Sol.
Marder, Y. Sun, A. Karim and D. G. Bucknall, J. Mater. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 110, 69–76.
Chem. A, 2015, 3, 21856–21863. 244 J. Y. Oh, M. Shin, H. W. Lee, Y.-J. Lee, H. K. Baik and
224 H.-W. Liu, D.-Y. Chang, W.-Y. Chiu, S.-P. Rwei and U. Jeong, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2014, 6, 7759–7765.
L. Wang, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 15586–15591. 245 A. Kumar, Z. Hong, S. Sista and Y. Yang, Adv. Energy Mater.,
225 C.-Y. Chen, C.-S. Tsao, Y.-C. Huang, H.-W. Liu, W.-Y. Chiu, 2011, 1, 124–131.
C.-M. Chuang, U. S. Jeng, C.-J. Su, W.-R. Wu, W.-F. Su and 246 L. Chang, H. W. A. Lademann, J.-B. Bonekamp, K. Meerholz
L. Wang, Nanoscale, 2013, 5, 7629–7638. and A. J. Moulé, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2011, 21, 1779–1787.
226 B. C. Schroeder, Z. Li, M. A. Brady, G. C. Faria, R. S. Ashraf, 247 C.-H. Tan, H. C. Wong, Z. Li, D. Bucknall, J. Durrant and
C. J. Takacs, J. S. Cowart, D. T. Duong, K. H. Chiu, J. T. Cabral, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2015, 3, 9551–9558.
C.-H. Tan, J. T. Cabral, A. Salleo, M. L. Chabinyc, 248 N. Li and C. J. Brabec, Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8,
J. R. Durrant and I. McCulloch, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2902–2909.
2014, 53, 12870–12875. 249 H. C. Wong, Z. Li, C. H. Tan, H. Zhong, Z. Huang,
227 C. Lindqvist, J. Bergqvist, O. Bäcke, S. Gustafsson, H. Bronstein, I. McCulloch, J. T. Cabral and J. R. Durrant,
E. Wang, E. Olsson, O. Inganäs, M. R. Andersson and ACS Nano, 2014, 8, 1297–1308.
C. Müller, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2014, 104, 153301. 250 F. Piersimoni, G. Degutis, S. Bertho, K. Vandewal,
228 C. Lindqvist, J. Bergqvist, C.-C. Feng, S. Gustafsson, D. Spoltore, T. Vangerven, J. Drijkoningen, M. K. Van Bael,
O. Bäcke, N. D. Treat, C. Bounioux, P. Henriksson, A. Hardy, J. D’Haen, W. Maes, D. Vanderzande, M. Nesladek
R. Kroon, E. Wang, A. Sanz-Velasco, P. M. Kristiansen, and J. Manca, J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys., 2013, 51,
N. Stingelin, E. Olsson, O. Inganäs, M. R. Andersson and 1209–1214.
C. Müller, Adv. Energy Mater., 2014, 4, 1301437. 251 C. Lin, E.-Y. Lin and F.-Y. Tsai, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2010, 20,
229 M.-H. Liao, C.-E. Tsai, Y.-Y. Lai, F.-Y. Cao, J.-S. Wu, 834–839.
C.-L. Wang, C.-S. Hsu, I. Liau and Y.-J. Cheng, Adv. Funct. 252 W. Huang, E. Gann, Z.-Q. Xu, L. Thomsen, Y.-B. Cheng and
Mater., 2014, 24, 1418–1429. C. McNeill, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 16313–16319.
230 S. Savagatrup, D. Rodriquez, A. D. Printz, A. B. Sieval, 253 Z. Li, H. C. Wong, Z. Huang, H. Zhong, C. H. Tan, W. C.
J. C. Hummelen and D. J. Lipomi, Chem. Mater., 2015, Tsoi, J. S. Kim, J. R. Durrant and J. T. Cabral, Nat. Commun.,
27, 3902–3911. 2013, 4, 2227.
231 K. Sivula, Z. T. Ball, N. Watanabe and J. M. J. Fréchet, Adv. 254 W. Wang, C. J. Schaffer, L. Song, V. Korstgens, S. Proller,
Mater., 2006, 18, 206–210. E. Dwi Indari, T. Wang, A. Abdelsamie, S. Bernstorff and
232 L. Chen, S. Tian and Y. Chen, Polym. Chem., 2014, 5, P. Muller-Buschbaum, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 8324–8331.
4480–4487. 255 F. J. Lim, A. Krishnamoorthy and G. W. Ho, ACS Appl.
233 H. J. Kim, J.-H. Kim, J.-H. Ryu, Y. Kim, H. Kang, W. B. Lee, Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7, 12119–12127.
T.-S. Kim and B. J. Kim, ACS Nano, 2014, 8, 10461–10470. 256 S.-H. Lee, J.-W. Seo and J.-Y. Lee, Nanoscale, 2015, 7,
234 M. Raissi, H. Erothu, E. Ibarboure, H. Cramail, L. Vignau, 157–165.
E. Cloutet and R. C. Hiorns, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 257 M. Hao, G. Luo, K. Shi, G. Xie, K. Wu, H. Wu, G. Yu, Y. Cao
18207–18221. and C. Yang, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 20516–20526.
235 R. Raja, W.-S. Liou, C.-Y. Hsiow, S.-P. Rwei, W.-Y. Chiu and 258 W.-H. Tseng, H.-C. Chen, Y.-C. Chien, C.-C. Liu, Y.-K. Peng,
L. Wang, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2015, 3, 14401–14408. Y.-S. Wu, J.-H. Chang, S.-H. Liu, S.-W. Chou, C.-L. Liu,
236 T. A. M. Ferenczi, C. Müller, D. D. C. Bradley, P. Smith, Y.-H. Chen, C.-I. Wu and P.-T. Chou, J. Mater. Chem. A,
J. Nelson and N. Stingelin, Adv. Mater., 2011, 23, 2014, 2, 20203–20212.
4093–4097. 259 J.-L. Lan, S.-J. Cherng, Y.-H. Yang, Q. Zhang,
237 J. W. Jung, J. W. Jo and W. H. Jo, Adv. Mater., 2011, 23, S. Subramaniyan, F. S. Ohuchi, S. A. Jenekhe and G. Cao,
1782–1787. J. Mater. Chem. A, 2014, 2, 9361–9370.
238 S.-C. Chien, F.-C. Chen, M.-K. Chung and C.-S. Hsu, J. Phys. 260 V. M. Drakonakis, A. Savva, M. Kokonou and S. A. Choulis,
Chem. C, 2012, 116, 1354–1360. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 130, 544–550.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
261 X. Bao, L. Sun, W. Shen, C. Yang, W. Chen and R. Yang, 286 X. Hu, L. Chen and Y. Chen, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2014, 118,
J. Mater. Chem. A, 2014, 2, 1732–1737. 9930–9938.
262 Z. Yin, Q. Zheng, S.-C. Chen and D. Cai, ACS Appl. Mater. 287 J. R. Manders, S.-W. Tsang, M. J. Hartel, T.-H. Lai, S. Chen,
Interfaces, 2013, 5, 9015–9025. C. M. Amb, J. R. Reynolds and F. So, Adv. Funct. Mater.,
263 Y.-M. Chang and C.-Y. Leu, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 2013, 23, 2993–3001.
6446–6451. 288 Z. Zhai, X. Huang, M. Xu, J. Yuan, J. Peng and W. Ma, Adv.
264 Y. Kim, H. R. Yeom, J. Y. Kim and C. Yang, Energy Environ. Energy Mater., 2013, 3, 1614–1622.
Sci., 2013, 6, 1909–1916. 289 S.-P. Cho, J.-S. Yeo, D.-Y. Kim, S.-I. Na and S.-S. Kim, Sol.
265 J. Min, H. Zhang, T. Stubhan, Y. N. Luponosov, M. Kraft, Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2015, 132, 196–203.
S. A. Ponomarenko, T. Ameri, U. Scherf and C. J. Brabec, 290 M. Qiu, D. Zhu, X. Bao, J. Wang, X. Wang and R. Yang,
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.
View Article Online
310 J.-H. Huang, M. A. Ibrahem and C.-W. Chu, Prog. Photo- 333 W. H. Shim, S.-Y. Park, M. Y. Park, H. O. Seo, K.-D. Kim,
voltaics, 2015, 23, 1017–1024. Y. T. Kim, Y. D. Kim, J.-W. Kang, K. H. Lee, Y. Jeong,
311 J. Wang, Y.-J. Lee and J. W. P. Hsu, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2014, Y. D. Kim and D. C. Lim, Adv. Mater., 2011, 23, 519–522.
118, 18417–18423. 334 M. He, J. Jung, F. Qiu and Z. Lin, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22,
312 M. Nikiforov, J. Strzalka, Z. Jiang and S. Darling, Phys. 24254–24264.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 2013, 15, 13052–13060. 335 S. Pang, Y. Hernandez, X. Feng and K. Müllen, Adv. Mater.,
313 Y.-M. Chang, R. Zhu, E. Richard, C.-C. Chen, G. Li and 2011, 23, 2779–2795.
Y. Yang, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2012, 22, 3284–3289. 336 D. S. Ghosh, Q. Liu, P. Mantilla-Perez, T. L. Chen,
314 Z. Yin, Q. Zheng, S.-C. Chen, D. Cai and Y. Ma, Adv. Energy V. Mkhitaryan, M. Huang, S. Garner, J. Martorell and
Mater., 2015, DOI: 10.1002/aenm.201501493. V. Pruneri, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2015, 25, 7309–7316.
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
315 Z. Yin, Q. Zheng, S.-C. Chen, D. Cai, L. Zhou and J. Zhang, 337 G. Zhao, W. Wang, T.-S. Bae, S.-G. Lee, C. Mun, S. Lee,
Adv. Energy Mater., 2014, 4, 1301404. H. Yu, G.-H. Lee, M. Song and J. Yun, Nat. Commun., 2015,
316 K. D. G. I. Jayawardena, S. Li, L. F. Sam, C. T. G. Smith, 6, 8830.
M. J. Beliatis, K. K. Gandhi, M. R. R. Prabhath, T. R. 338 Z. Xue, X. Liu, N. Zhang, H. Chen, X. Zheng, H. Wang and
Pozegic, S. Chen, X. Xu, G. D. M. R. Dabera, L. J. Rozanski, X. Guo, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2014, 6, 16403–16408.
R. A. Sporea, C. A. Mills, X. Guo and S. R. P. Silva, Nanoscale, 339 W. Wang, M. Song, T.-S. Bae, Y. H. Park, Y.-C. Kang,
2015, 7, 14241–14247. S.-G. Lee, S.-Y. Kim, D. H. Kim, S. Lee, G. Min, G.-H. Lee,
317 S. Bai, Y. Jin, X. Liang, Z. Ye, Z. Wu, B. Sun, Z. Ma, Z. Tang, J.-W. Kang and J. Yun, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2014, 24,
J. Wang, U. Würfel, F. Gao and F. Zhang, Adv. Energy 1551–1561.
Mater., 2015, 5, 1401606. 340 K. Hong, J. Ham, B.-J. Kim, J. Y. Park, D. C. Lim, J.-Y. Lee
318 H.-Y. Park, D. Lim, K.-D. Kim and S.-Y. Jang, J. Mater. and J.-L. Lee, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7,
Chem. A, 2013, 1, 6327–6334. 27397–27404.
319 S. Venkatesan, E. Ngo, D. Khatiwada, C. Zhang and 341 M. Song, J. Park, C. Kim, D.-H. Kim, Y.-C. Kang, S.-H. Jin,
Q. Qiao, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7, W.-Y. Jin and J.-W. Kang, Nano Res., 2014, 7, 1370–1379.
16093–16100. 342 M. Song, H.-J. Kim, C. S. Kim, J.-H. Jeong, C. Cho, J.-Y. Lee,
320 C. Pang, V. Chellappan, J. H. Yim, M. J. Tan, G. T. W. Goh, S.-H. Jin, D.-G. Choi and D.-H. Kim, J. Mater. Chem. A,
S. Lee, J. Zhang and J. de Mello, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 3, 65–70.
2015, 7, 5219–5225. 343 Y. Song, Y. Jiang, L. Shi, S. Cao, X. Feng, M. Miao and
321 B. Courtright and S. A. Jenekhe, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, J. Fang, Nanoscale, 2015, 7, 13694–13701.
2015, 7, 26167–26175. 344 H. Lee, G. Han, M. Kim, H.-S. Ahn and H. Lee, Adv. Mater.,
322 L. Hu, L. Chen, X. Hu and Y. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2015, 27, 2252–2259.
2, 10282–10290. 345 Y. Kim, T. I. Ryu, K.-H. Ok, M.-G. Kwak, S. Park, N.-G. Park,
323 C. Xie, L. Chen and Y. Chen, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117, C. J. Han, B. S. Kim, M. J. Ko, H. J. Son and J.-W. Kim, Adv.
24804–24814. Funct. Mater., 2015, 25, 4580–4589.
324 C.-H. Hsieh, Y.-J. Cheng, P.-J. Li, C.-H. Chen, M. Dubosc, 346 Y. Jin, L. Li, Y. Cheng, L. Kong, Q. Pei and F. Xiao, Adv.
R.-M. Liang and C.-S. Hsu, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2010, 132, Funct. Mater., 2015, 25, 1581–1587.
4887–4893. 347 H.-G. Im, S.-H. Jung, J. Jin, D. Lee, J. Lee, D. Lee, J.-Y. Lee,
325 L. Hu, F. Wu, C. Li, A. Hu, X. Hu, Y. Zhang, L. Chen and I.-D. Kim and B.-S. Bae, ACS Nano, 2014, 8, 10973–10979.
Y. Chen, Macromolecules, 2015, 48, 5578–5586. 348 X. He, R. He, A. L. Liu, X. Chen, Z. Zhao, S. Feng, N. Chen
326 Z. Lin, J. Chang, J. Zhang, C. Jiang, J. Wu and C. Zhu, and M. Zhang, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 9737–9745.
J. Mater. Chem. A, 2014, 2, 7788–7794. 349 S. Soltanian, R. Rahmanian, B. Gholamkhass, N. M.
327 P. Cai, S. Zhong, X. Xu, J. Chen, W. Chen, F. Huang, Y. Ma Kiasari, F. Ko and P. Servati, Adv. Energy Mater., 2013, 3,
and Y. Cao, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 123, 1332–1337.
104–111. 350 D. Lee, H. Lee, Y. Ahn, Y. Jeong, D.-Y. Lee and Y. Lee,
328 N. Wu, Q. Luo, Z. Bao, J. Lin, Y.-Q. Li and C.-Q. Ma, Sol. Nanoscale, 2013, 5, 7750–7755.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2015, 141, 248–259. 351 H. Park, S. Chang, X. Zhou, J. Kong, T. Palacios and
329 B. A. MacLeod, B. J. Tremolet de Villers, P. Schulz, P. F. S. Gradečak, Nano Lett., 2014, 14, 5148–5154.
Ndione, H. Kim, A. J. Giordano, K. Zhu, S. R. Marder, 352 H. Chang, G. Wang, A. Yang, X. Tao, X. Liu, Y. Shen and
S. Graham, J. J. Berry, A. Kahn and D. C. Olson, Energy Z. Zheng, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2010, 20, 2893–2902.
Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 592–601. 353 X. Fan, J. Wang, H. Wang, X. Liu and H. Wang, ACS Appl.
330 Z. Kam, X. Wang, J. Zhang and J. Wu, ACS Appl. Mater. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 7, 16287–16295.
Interfaces, 2015, 7, 1608–1615. 354 S. K. Hau, H.-L. Yip, J. Zou and A. K. Y. Jen, Org. Electron.,
331 J. Chang, Z. Lin, C. Jiang, J. Zhang, C. Zhu and J. Wu, ACS 2009, 10, 1401–1407.
Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2014, 6, 18861–18867. 355 Y. Galagan, A. Mescheloff, S. C. Veenstra, R. Andriessen
332 S. Sanchez, S. Berson, S. Guillerez, C. Lévy-Clément and and E. A. Katz, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2015, 17,
V. Ivanova, Adv. Energy Mater., 2012, 2, 541–545. 3891–3897.
Chem. Soc. Rev. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016
View Article Online
356 M.-F. Lo, T.-W. Ng, H.-W. Mo and C.-S. Lee, Adv. Funct. 369 F. C. Krebs, J. Fyenbo, D. M. Tanenbaum, S. A. Gevorgyan,
Mater., 2013, 23, 1718–1723. R. Andriessen, B. van Remoortere, Y. Galagan and
357 D. A. Mengistie, M. A. Ibrahem, P.-C. Wang and C.-W. Chu, M. Jorgensen, Energy Environ. Sci., 2011, 4, 4116–4123.
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2014, 6, 2292–2299. 370 P. Romero-Gomez, R. Betancur, A. Martinez-Otero, X. Elias,
358 S. W. Heo, E. J. Lee, K. W. Seong and D. K. Moon, Sol. M. Mariano, B. Romero, B. Arredondo, R. Vergaz and
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 115, 123–128. J. Martorell, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2015, 137,
359 C. J. An, H.-W. Yoo, C. Cho, J.-M. Park, J. K. Choi, M. l. Jin, J.-Y. 44–49.
Lee and H.-T. Jung, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2014, 2, 2915–2921. 371 H. Yamaguchi, J. Granstrom, W. Nie, H. Sojoudi, T. Fujita,
360 S. D. Yambem, K.-S. Liao, N. J. Alley and S. A. Curran, D. Voiry, M. Chen, G. Gupta, A. D. Mohite, S. Graham and
J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 6894–6898. M. Chhowalla, Adv. Energy Mater., 2014, 4, 1300986.
Published on 18 February 2016. Downloaded by New York University on 18/02/2016 22:45:08.
361 Z. G. Zhang, B. Y. Qi, Z. W. Jin, D. Chi, Z. Qi, Y. F. Li and 372 T. Kim, J. H. Kang, S. J. Yang, S. J. Sung, Y. S. Kim and
J. Z. Wang, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1966–1973. C. R. Park, Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 3403–3411.
362 H. R. Yeom, J. Heo, G.-H. Kim, S.-J. Ko, S. Song, Y. Jo, 373 C.-Y. Chang and F.-Y. Tsai, J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21,
D. S. Kim, B. Walker and J. Y. Kim, Phys. Chem. Chem. 5710–5715.
Phys., 2015, 17, 2152–2159. 374 S. Sarkar, J. H. Culp, J. T. Whyland, M. Garvan and
363 W.-Y. Tan, R. Wang, M. Li, G. Liu, P. Chen, X.-C. Li, V. Misra, Org. Electron., 2010, 11, 1896–1900.
S.-M. Lu, H. L. Zhu, Q.-M. Peng, X.-H. Zhu, W. Chen, 375 A. Garg, S. K. Gupta, J. J. Jasieniak, T. B. Singh and
W. C. H. Choy, F. Li, J. Peng and Y. Cao, Adv. Funct. Mater., S. E. Watkins, Prog. Photovoltaics, 2015, 23, 989–996.
2014, 24, 6540–6547. 376 E. Aluicio-Sarduy, A. Baidak, G. C. Vougioukalakis and
364 T. M. Khan, Y. Zhou, A. Dindar, J. W. Shim, C. Fuentes- P. E. Keivanidis, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2014, 118, 2361–2369.
Hernandez and B. Kippelen, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 377 R. Roesch, K.-R. Eberhardt, S. Engmann, G. Gobsch and
2014, 6, 6202–6207. H. Hoppe, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 117, 59–66.
365 F. Liu, Z. A. Page, V. V. Duzhko, T. P. Russell and 378 M. P. Nikiforov, J. Strzalka and S. B. Darling, Sol. Energy
T. Emrick, Adv. Mater., 2013, 25, 6868–6873. Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 110, 36–42.
366 S. B. Sapkota, A. Spies, B. Zimmermann, I. Dürr and 379 N. Chen, P. Kovacik, R. M. Howden, X. Wang, S. Lee and
U. Würfel, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 130, 144–150. K. K. Gleason, Adv. Energy Mater., 2015, 5, 1401442.
367 D. Elkington, N. Cooling, X. J. Zhou, W. J. Belcher and 380 A. Morlier, S. Cros, J.-P. Garandet and N. Alberola, Sol.
P. C. Dastoor, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2014, 124, 75–78. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 115, 93–99.
368 D. M. Tanenbaum, H. F. Dam, R. Rösch, M. Jørgensen, 381 H.-J. Lee, H.-P. Kim, H.-M. Kim, J.-H. Youn, D.-H. Nam,
H. Hoppe and F. C. Krebs, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, Y.-G. Lee, J.-G. Lee, A. R. B. Mohd Yusoff and J. Jang,
2012, 97, 157–163. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2013, 111, 97–101.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2016 Chem. Soc. Rev.