Advanced Energy Materials - 2022 - Almora - Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 3

Review
www.advenergymat.de
Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials

(Version 3)
Osbel Almora,* Derya Baran, Guillermo C. Bazan, Carlos I. Cabrera,
Sule Erten-Ela, Karen Forberich, Fei Guo, Jens Hauch, Anita W. Y. Ho-Baillie,
T. Jesper Jacobsson, Rene A. J. Janssen, Thomas Kirchartz, Nikos Kopidakis,
Maria A. Loi, Richard R. Lunt, Xavier Mathew, Michael D. McGehee, Jie Min,
David B. Mitzi, Mohammad K. Nazeeruddin, Jenny Nelson, Ana F. Nogueira,
Ulrich W. Paetzold, Barry P. Rand, Uwe Rau, Henry J. Snaith, Eva Unger,
Lídice Vaillant-Roca, Chenchen Yang, Hin-Lap Yip, and Christoph J. Brabec*
1. Introduction
Following the 2nd release of the “Emerging PV reports,” the best achievements
Emerging photovoltaic (e-PV) technolo-
in the performance of emerging photovoltaic devices in diverse emerging
gies are arguably the main focus of the
photovoltaic research subjects are summarized, as reported in peer-reviewed research community in the PV field as
articles in academic journals since August 2021. Updated graphs, tables, and they hold the promise for providing cheap
analyses are provided with several performance parameters, e.g., power conver- and scalable technologies for the photo-
sion efficiency, open-circuit voltage, short-circuit current density, fill factor, light voltaic commodity market as well as new
utilization efficiency, and stability test energy yield. These parameters are pre- and versatile applications such as flexible,
transparent, and integrated photovoltaics.
sented as a function of the photovoltaic bandgap energy and the average visible
The state-of-the-art achievements as pub-
transmittance for each technology and application, and are put into perspec- lished in academic journals with data
tive using, e.g., the detailed balance efficiency limit. The 3rd installment of the about the best performing devices in the
“Emerging PV reports” extends the scope toward triple junction solar cells. research of e-PV devices have now been
systematically parameterized and reported
O. Almora C. I. Cabrera
Department of Physical, Chemical and Natural Systems Unidad Académica de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Luz y la Materia
University Pablo de Olavide Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
Seville 41013, Spain Zacatecas 98160, Mexico
O. Almora, C. J. Brabec S. Erten-Ela
Erlangen Graduate School of Advanced Optical Technologies (SAOT) Solar Energy Institute
91052 Erlangen, Germany Ege University
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Bornova, Izmir 35100, Turkey
D. Baran K. Forberich, J. Hauch, C. J. Brabec
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE) Helmholtz-Institut Erlangen-Nürnberg for Renewable Energy (HI ERN)
KAUST Solar Center (KSC) Institute of Materials for Electronics and Energy Technology (i-MEET)
Thuwal 23955, Saudi Arabia 91058 Erlangen, Germany
G. C. Bazan F. Guo
Departments of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Institute of New Energy Technology
National University of Singapore College of Information Science and Technology
Singapore 117543, Singapore Jinan University
Guangzhou 510632, P. R. China
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202203313. School of Physics and The University of Sydney Nano Institute
The University of Sydney
© 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley- Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
VCH GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms of the Crea- T. J. Jacobsson
tive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which Institute of Photoelectronic Thin Film Devices and Technology
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work Key Laboratory of Photoelectronic Thin Film Devices
is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or and Technology of Tianjin
adaptations are made. College of Electronic Information and Optical Engineering
Nankai University
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202203313 Tianjin 300350, P. R. China
Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 2203313 2203313 (1 of 28) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
16146840, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202203313 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [12/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de
since 2020 in the annual emerging PV reports (e-PVr)[1,2] series, present the operationally most stable devices as well as the
of which this is the third version. In this context, not only the best performing cells in the subcategories of flexible and trans-
performance data of the best e-PV devices (e.g., see Green parent/semitransparent PVs for single and multiple (now up to
et al.)[3] are listed, but the values are also put into perspective by three) junction devices.
comparing the devices in certain categories defined by the class Similar to previous e-PVr,[2] the criteria for inclusion in these
of absorber material or the application. Notably, the e-PVr lists surveys require the data to be published in a peer-reviewed
and displays the performance parameters of the top efficiency academic journal with a proper “methods” section that allows
cells for each technology and at each absorber material bandgap experimental reproduction of the results as well as basic data
energy and compares the data to the corresponding theoretical to perform self-consistency checks. For the power conversion
limit in the detailed balance (DB)[4–6] model. Additionally, we efficiency (PCE) values, the current density–voltage (J–V) curve
R. A. J. Janssen M. K. Nazeeruddin
Molecular Materials and Nanosystems and Institute Group for Molecular Engineering and Functional Materials
for Complex Molecular Systems Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Eindhoven University of Technology Institut des Sciences et Ingénierie Chimiques
Eindhoven 5600 MB, The Netherlands Sion CH-1951, Switzerland
R. A. J. Janssen J. Nelson
Dutch Institute for Fundamental Energy Research Department of Physics
De Zaale 20, Eindhoven 5612 AJ, The Netherlands Imperial College London
T. Kirchartz, U. Rau London SW7 2BZ, UK
IEK5-Photovoltaics A. F. Nogueira
Forschungszentrum Jülich Chemistry Institute
52425 Jülich, Germany University of Campinas
T. Kirchartz PO Box 6154, Campinas, São Paulo 13083-970, Brazil
Faculty of Engineering and CENIDE U. W. Paetzold
University of Duisburg-Essen Institute of Microstructure Technology (IMT)
47057 Duisburg, Germany Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
N. Kopidakis 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
PV Cell and Module Performance group U. W. Paetzold
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Light Technology Institute (LTI)
Golden, CO 80401, USA Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
M. A. Loi 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Photophysics and OptoElectronics Group B. P. Rand
Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials Department of Electrical Engineering and Andlinger Center for Energy
University of Groningen and the Environment
Nijenborgh 4, Groningen NL-9747 AG, The Netherlands Princeton University
R. R. Lunt Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science H. J. Snaith
Department of Physics and Astronomy Clarendon Laboratory
Michigan State University Department of Physics
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA University of Oxford
X. Mathew Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Instituto de Energías Renovables E. Unger
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin
Temixco, Morelos 62580, Mexico 14109 Berlin, Germany
M. D. McGehee L. Vaillant-Roca
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering and Materials Photovoltaic Research Laboratory, Institute of Materials Science and
Science and Engineering Program Technology – Physics Faculty
University of Colorado University of Havana
Boulder, CO 80309, USA Havana 10400, Cuba
M. D. McGehee C. Yang
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science
15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, USA Michigan State University
J. Min East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
The Institute for Advanced Studies C. Yang
Wuhan University Solaria Corporation
Wuhan 430072, P. R. China Fremont, CA 94538, USA
J. Min H.-L. Yip
Key Laboratory of Materials Processing and Mold (Zhengzhou University) Department of Materials Science and Engineering and Hong Kong
Ministry of Education Institute for Clean Energy
Zhengzhou 450002, P. R. China City University of Hong Kong
D. B. Mitzi Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon 999077, Hong Kong
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science C. J. Brabec
and Department of Chemistry Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials
Duke University University of Groningen
Durham, NC 27708, USA Groningen 9747, The Netherlands
measured under standard conditions and the external quantum technologies when a single optical bandgap energy is not
efficiency (EQE) spectra should be presented and should be directly defined,[1] e.g., in organic photovoltaics (OPVs).
consistent insofar that the short-circuit current density (Jsc) Following the previous e-PVr,[2] each section includes the
determined from both methods should not differ by more best performing cells as reported in the literature and grouped
than 10%. Reporting 5 min of maximum power point (MPP) in different technologies or material families. The corre-
tracking is encouraged, in particular for perovskite solar cells sponding abbreviations are summarized in Table 2. Impor-
(PSCs). For flexible and transparent/semitransparent devices, tantly, for multijunction PV cells we define the top subcell as
some evidence of the bending radius and the transmittance that which receives the total incident photon flux and gener-
(T) spectra should be provided, respectively. In the case of ally has the highest absorber material bandgap energy (Eg,top)
operational stability test results, the initial and final efficiencies in comparison with the other subcell(s). Similarly, the bottom
before and after 200 h or 1000 h are expected to be specified subcell will be the one receiving the last and smaller fraction
in the published paper. For multijunction devices, from this of the filtered incident photon flux and will generally have
e-PVr onward we will also include triple junction solar cells, the smallest absorber material bandgap energy (Eg,bottom), in
and analogous data of the devices should be provided with par- comparison with the other subcell(s). For two junction cells
ticular attention to the material and EQE data of each subcell. or tandem devices, only the top and bottom subcells are pre-
In addition, articles lacking some of the mandatory require- sent. Differently, for triple junction cells a middle subcell will
ments to be included in the e-PVr could be reconsidered, pro- be sandwiched in between the top and bottom subcells with an
vided a suitable extended or additional supporting document be absorber material bandgap energy (Eg,mid) typically larger than
posted on the emerging-pv.org website. Further details on the Eg,bottom and smaller than Eg,top.
accuracy, performance parameters, discarding, and tie rules can In this article, the updated graphs and tables of the best per-
be found in the previous e-PVr[1] and in Sections S1.5 and S1.6 forming research photovoltaic cells are presented with the latest
of the Supporting Information. reports since August 2021. As an extension of the previous
Table 1 summarizes the equations, definitions, and useful report, single junction AgBiS2-based devices and monolithic/2-
references already presented in the previous e-PVr and now terminal triple-junction photovoltaic cells are now incorporated
updated in the current version, whereas Table S1 of the Sup- not only among the top efficiency cells but also in the section of
porting Information reviews the minimal details to include in a flexible photovoltaics. In the plot representations (Sections 2–5),
research article to be considered in an e-PVr. Here we highlight older and newer values are displayed with lighter and darker dot
the use of the definition of the photovoltaic bandgap energy colors, respectively. Similarly, new entries are in a bold case in
as the inflection point of the absorption threshold of the EQE the tables (see Sections 7.1–7.4, Tables 3–26). The following sec-
spectrum.[7,8] This definition not only characterizes the opera- tions not only describe the updated plots and tables resulting
tional response of the entire device (rather than an independent from our database but also highlight and discuss the most rel-
absorber layer or set of sublayers), but also provide an uni- evant and recent achievements in each section and comment
fying framework for comparison between different emerging on general trends and progress in the field during the last year.
Table 1. Equations and definitions considered in this work.
Nos. Equation Definitions and comments Refs.

(1) PCE, power conversion efficiency; Pout, output power density, Pin, incoming power density; Voc, open- [1]
Pout Voc · Jsc · FF
PCE = = circuit voltage; Jsc, short-circuit current density; FF, fill factor
Pin Pin
(2) Am Procedure to determine Eg from the EQE(λ) spectrum: EQE, external quantum efficiency; λ, wavelength; [7]
EQE = Am, maximum EQE value just above the bandgap absorption threshold; h, Planck's constant; c, speed of
hc
(λ − ) light; Eg, photovoltaic bandgap energy; λs, sigmoid wavelength width parameter (EQE onset quality wave-
Eg
1+ exp[κ ] length), κ = ln[7 + 4√3] ≈ 2.63, dimensionless coefficient related to the second derivative of the sigmoid.
λs
(3) real real The “real” superscript refers to the experimental values; the “ideal” superscript refers to the theoretical [10]
PCE real Jsc Voc FFreal
ideal
= ideal limit of each performance parameter as in the detailed-balance models,[4,5,9], e.g., the highest efficiency for
PCE Jsc Voc FF ideal
ideal
a single junction cell with absorber material of bandgap energy Eg at a temperature Tc under
a spectral irradiance Γ.
(4) AVT, average visible transmittance; T, transmittance; P, photopic response of the human eye; ΓAM1.5G is [11]
∫ T( λ ) P( λ ) Γ AM1.5G( λ )dλ
AVT = the standard 1 sun illumination intensity AM1.5G spectrum, typically in units of W m−2 nm−1.
∫ P( λ ) Γ AM1.5G( λ )dλ
(5) LUE = AVT · PCE LUE, light utilization efficiency [12]

(6) ∆τ ∆τ Δτ, operational stability test time; EΔτ, operational stability test energy yield (STEY) for a test of duration [1]
E ∆τ = ∫ Pout dt = ∫ Pin PCE dt Δτ; t, time; STEY is taken for 200 and 1000 h of stability tests as E200h and E1000h, respectively.
0 0
(7) PCE(τ ) − PCE(0) DRΔτ, effective overall degradation rate for an operational stability test of duration Δτ; DR200h and DR1000h [1]
DR ∆τ = are taken as the overall degradation rates for 200 and 1000 h of stability tests, respectively.
∆τ
Table 2. Abbreviations for PV technologies or material families considered in this work.
Abbreviation Meaning and comments

AgBiS AgBiS2-based single junction photovoltaic cells
a-Si:H Amorphous silicon single junction photovoltaic cell; for representation purposes, a-SiGe:H-based single
junction cells are exceptionally considered within this abbreviation.
CdTe Cadmium telluride single junction photovoltaic cell
CIGS CuInxGa1–xSe2-based single junction photovoltaic cell
CIGS/DSSC Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: CuInxGa1–xSe2-based bottom subcell and dye sensitized top subcell
CIGS/perovskite Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: CuInxGa1–xSe2-based bottom subcell and perovskite-based top subcell
CiGS/AlGaAs/GaInP Monolithic/2-terminal triple junction photovoltaic cell: CuInxGa1–xSe2-based bottom subcell,
AlGaAs-based middle subcell and GaInP-based top subcell
CZTS Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4-based single junction photovoltaic cell
DSSC Dye sensitized single junction photovoltaic cell
DSSC/perovskite Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: dye sensitized bottom subcell and perovskite-based top subcell
GaAs Gallium arsenide single junction photovoltaic cell
GaAs/GaInP Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: GaAs-based bottom subcell and GaInP-based top subcell
GaAs/perovskite Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: GaAs-based bottom subcell and perovskite-based top subcell
InGaAs/GaAs/InGaP Monolithic/2-terminal triple junction photovoltaic cell: InGaAs-based bottom subcell, GaAs-based middle subcell, and GaInP-based top subcell
nc-Si/a-Si Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: nanocrystalline or microcrystalline Si bottom subcell and amorphous Si top subcell
nc-Si/nc-Si/a-Si Monolithic/2-terminal triple junction photovoltaic cell: nanocrystalline silicon-based bottom and middle subcells,
and amorphous silicon-based top subcell
OPV Organic photovoltaic material-based single junction photovoltaic cell
OPV/a-Si Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: organic-based bottom subcell and amorphous silicon-based top subcell
OPV/perovskite Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: the bottom and top subcells are organic- and perovskite-based, respectively or vice versa.
PSC Perovskite single junction photovoltaic cell
SbS Sb2(S,Se)3-based single junction photovoltaic cell
Si Monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon single junction photovoltaic cell, including homo- or heterojunction structures.
Si/DSSC Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: Si-based bottom subcell and dye sensitized top subcell
Si/GaAsP Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: Si-based bottom subcell and GaAs1−xPx-based top subcell
Si/GaInAsP/InGaP Monolithic/2-terminal triple junction photovoltaic cell: silicon-based bottom subcell, GaInAsP-based middle subcell, and GaInP-based top
subcell
Si/perov/perov Monolithic/2-terminal triple junction photovoltaic cell: Si-based bottom subcell and perovskite-based middle and top subcells
Si/perovskite Monolithic/2-terminal tandem photovoltaic cell: Si-based bottom subcell and perovskite-based top subcell
TLSC Transparent luminescent solar concentrator, including a lightguide, luminophore, and mounted solar cell(s).
2. Highest Efficiency Research Photovoltaic Cells cells. It can be seen that PSCs outperform OPVs, and all other
new entries for e-PVs, in terms of Voc and FF and hence also
2.1. Single Junction Devices in PCE. Importantly, new records were reported for dye-sensi-
tized,[14] kesterite,[3] and antimony selenosulfide[15] devices and
The top efficiency single junction research cells are summa- the AgBiS2-based cells are now included as a new technology in
rized in Figure 1 as a function of the PV bandgap, along with our plots. Moreover, some other new reports have been added
the detailed-balance theoretical efficiency limit[4] for a single for crystalline-silicon based heterojunction[16] solar cells, which
junction assuming radiative emission from the front and the are still below the top efficiency reported cells for their respec-
rear side of the photovoltaic cell.[13] The new entries in the data- tive technologies.
base are highlighted in more opaque colors. Among new PSCs entries, the new absolute certified record
Overall, most of the new record cells belong to the group with an efficiency of 25.7% was reported in the tables published
of PSCs and OPVs. The compositional space of the perovskite by Green et al.,[3] which does not include further information
absorber materials is large and the new reports are scattered beyond the performance parameters and the EQE spectrum. A
over nearly all the bandgap range of Figure 1. On the other similar 25.7% efficiency (25.4% certified) was reported by Kim
hand, the OPVs seem to cluster in the range 1.39–1.42 eV, appar- et al.[17] for a FAPbI3-based device where the commonly used
ently due to the commonly employed polymer PM6 included in mesoporous–titanium dioxide electron transport layer was
many binary and ternary blends used as active layers in these replaced with a thin layer of polyacrylic acid–stabilized tin(IV)
Figure 1. Highest efficiency single junction photovoltaic cells. Performance parameters as a function of effective absorber bandgap for different
photovoltaic technologies: power conversion efficiency (top) open-circuit voltage (bottom left), fill factor (bottom center), and short-circuit current
density (bottom right). Experimental data are summarized in Section 7.1, with the lighter and opaquer dots corresponding to the older and updated
cells, respectively. The solid lines indicate the corresponding theoretical detailed-balance efficiency limit.[13]
oxide quantum dots (paa-QD-SnO2) on the compact titanium certified) cell. The latter work proposed a reactive surface engi-
dioxide. This strategy not only proved to increase efficiency but neering approach based on a postgrowth treatment of 3-(ami-
also stability and potential for scalability, achieving over 20% nomethyl)pyridine (3-APy) on top of the perovskite thin film,
efficiency for a 64 cm2 solar minimodule. Moreover, Zhao et al. which not only resulted in increased efficiency but also in oper-
presented another FAPbI3-based cell with a certified efficiency ational stability over >2000 h (see also Section 5).
of 25.6%. In this case, the authors stabilized the perovskite Intriguingly, at least two articles[23,24] about Sn-based PSCs
phase by converting the secondary-phase excess lead iodide report device structures that apparently fit the traditional defi-
(PbI2) into an inactive (PbI2)2RbCl compound via doping with nition of single junction cells but result in anomalously high
rubidium chloride (RbCl). Voc values, even above the corresponding radiative DB limits
Additional notable developments in the field of opaque, (see Figure 1 bottom-left). Besides the relatively low Eg values,
single junction perovskite solar cells are significant improve- these cells have in common the complexity of the absorption
ments in fill factor. While the fill factor of halide perovskites layer(s) toward the electron transport layer (ETL). Specifically,
with typical bandgaps in the range ≈1.6 eV could exceed 90% Zhou et al.[24] included a BTBTI:PCBM blend in between the
in the detailed balance limit, in practice reported fill factors perovskite and the ETL, whereas Lei et al.[23] introduced low-
were mostly in the range of 80% to 84% for the best devices.[18] dimensional Bi3+-alloyed BA2MA4Sn5I16 superlattices by chem-
Recently, however, strategies based on interface modifications ical epitaxy. Although none of the works provided major justi-
were reported to improve the fill factor up to 86% even for areas fications for these behaviors, one may hypothesize that mobili-
>1 cm2 while at the same time enabling high efficiencies above ties and lifetimes significantly change as a function of depth
23%.[19] Also in the field of higher bandgap p–i–n type perov- thereby invalidating the assumption of flat quasi-Fermi levels
skite solar cells, high fill factors above 86% were achieved by (at open-circuit) typically used to calculate the radiative limit of
interfacial passivation with guanidinium bromide.[20] Voc. Importantly, while this effect could lead to Voc values above
A second development in the last year was that the device the DB limit, it cannot lead to PCE values above the DB limit.
geometry that is alternatively called p–i–n type or inverted For OPVs, a consolidated set of at least 25 reports with cells
geometry was making significant improvements in peak effi- having over-18% efficiency illustrates the significant progress
ciency, thereby closing the gap toward n–i–p type or regular during the last year. The highest efficiency entries are the 19.6%
geometry perovskites. Again, interfacial passivation enabled (19.2% certified) efficient solar cell reported by Zhu et al.[25]
the first >25% p–i–n type perovskite solar cells as reported by and the 19.05% of Wei et al. [26] For the highest efficiency, the
Li et al.[21] whereas the current top efficiency for this device focus was on the morphology optimization of the ternary blend
design was achieved by Jian et al.[22] with a 25.3% (24.1% PM6:D18:L8-BO, while the approach of Wei et al. centered on
Figure 2. Analysis of PCE data in Figure 1 with respect to the DB efficiency limit (top panel), the publication date (bottom-left and -center) and the
device or active area of the record cells (bottom-right). The top-left graph shows the relative efficiencies with respect to the theoretical limit for all the
cells and the top-right graph presents the logarithmic loss analysis for the top efficiency cell of each technology, as defined by Equation (3) of Table 1.
The legend is as that of Figure 1, where opaque and light symbols indicate recent and older reports, respectively. The solid lines in the bottom-left graph
contain the data from NREL's “Best research-cell efficiency chart.[33]
the sequential deposition of the binary blend D18:L8-BO. More- absorbers. The current champion cell presents a 9.17% (8.85%
over, another interesting result by Liu et al.[27] is highlighted certified) efficiency, as reported by Wang et al.[32] who found
in terms of the development of low-bandgap OPVs, which that cation-disorder-engineered AgBiS2 colloidal nanocrystals
achieved a 13.35% efficiency solar cell based on the binary optimize the absorption coefficient. This enabled 30 nm thick
blend PTB7-Th:ATT-9 with a photovoltaic bandgap of 1.22 eV. absorber photovoltaic devices for a remarkable photocurrent of
This result not only allowed a remarkable photocurrent of 27 mA cm−2.
30 mA cm−2 for application in semitransparent photovoltaics Most recently, a new record efficiency for DSSCs was
but also shows potential for integration into multijunction reported by Ren et al. with a certified PCE value of 15.2%. Their
devices as rear subcell. result was possible with cells that included a monolayer of a
The latest record performance Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 cell has been hydroxamic acid derivative on the surface of TiO2 to improve
reported by Green et al.[3] with a certified efficiency of 13.6%. the dye molecular packing and overall photovoltaic performance
More recently, Wang et al.[28] showed a 13.14% (12.8% certified) of two newly designed coadsorbed sensitizers: SL9 and SL10.
efficiency device resulting from introducing a thin GeO2 layer These cosensitized devices not only achieve remarkable per-
on Mo substrates. This strategy was suggested to produce a formance among the entire family of DSSCs, but also exhibit
bidirectional diffusion of Ge, which reduced the defect density a relative optimization level comparable to top efficiency OPV
and thus the Voc deficit. and wide bandgap PSCs. The latter is illustrated in Figure 1
Another new efficiency record has been reported among where the new record DSSC outperforms OPVs in terms of Voc
Sb2(S,Se)3 solar cells from a device reported by Zhao et al.[15] and shows similar values of FF. A similar conclusion is also
with a PCE of 10.7%. Here, alkali metal fluorides post treat- evident when considering the DB efficiency limits for the cor-
ments are applied to improve the quality of Sb2(S,Se)3 films responding Eg, as presented in Figure 2.
by manipulating the S/Se gradient in the films, which creates The analyses on the current state-of-the-art device perfor-
a favorable energy alignment for the charge carrier transport. mance with respect to the DB efficiency limit are illustrated
Notably, although earlier proposed as all-inorganic devices,[29] in an alternative way in the top panel of Figure 2. In the top-
it has only been after the inclusion of spiro-OMeTAD as a hole left plot of that figure one can find the same efficiency data as
selective layer SbS cells[15,30,31] that the efficiencies exceeded 10%. in Figure 1, but now in terms of the ratio between the experi-
The new introduction to our graphs and tables for single- mental value and the theoretical limit for the efficiency, as
junction devices are photovoltaic cells based on AgBiS2 defined in Equation (3) of Table 1. Of emerging devices, PSCs
Figure 3. Highest efficiency for monolithic/two-terminal multijunction photovoltaic research cells including up to three junctions. Performance param-
eters as a function of the absorber bandgap energy of the bottom subcell for various photovoltaic technologies: power conversion efficiency (top-left),
open-circuit voltage (top-right), short-circuit current density (bottom-left), fill factor (bottom-center), and corresponding area (bottom-right). The
dotted, dashed, and solid lines in the efficiency graph indicate the single junction, the top-subcell-optimized and top- and middle-subcell-optimized
DB efficiency limits for one junction, double junction, and triple junction photovoltaic cells, respectively.[5,9] Light and opaque dots indicate the reports
published before and after August 2021, respectively.
exhibit the highest degree of optimization, up to 82% of the data from NREL's “Best research-cell efficiency chart” (solid
DB limit, which is only outperformed by silicon and GaAs lines).[33] Notably, OPV devices display an apparent upswing
single junction cells. Even the wide-bandgap (≈2.34 eV) PSCs with significant improvement in efficiency during the last year.
can achieve 69% of the theoretical limit, while all other e-PV The time evolution of material variability within technologies
technologies are below 60%. Furthermore, the top-right graph is illustrated in the bottom-center graph of Figure 2. Notably,
in Figure 2 shows the loss analysis for the champion efficiency the research on OPV seems to have gradually lost interest in
cells of each technology, highlighting with bold labels and active materials whose effective photovoltaic bandgap exceeds
opaque symbols the new entries in the current e-PVr. The new 1.5 eV. Even though this is related to the emergence of non-
top efficiency PSC[3] not only matches the relative performance fullerene acceptors and the latest increase in efficiency, the lack
of the silicon solar cell but also shows a nearly even distribution of progress in the wide-bandgap OPVs may limit progress of
of losses between photovoltage, photocurrent and FF. By con- all-organic multijunction solar cells.
trast, the five other new record cells (DSSC,[14] OPV,[25] CZTS,[3] Regarding scalability, the PCE values as a function of the cell
Sb2Se3,[15] AgBiS2)[32] show the persistent[2] major influence of area are now included for rigid and flexible cells in Figures 2–4.
photovoltage losses over any other parameter. Notably, the accuracy and type of area (see, e.g., Green et al.[34])
The time evolution of the device performance presented are not specified due to the irregular and often poor descrip-
in Figure 1 is shown in detail for the bottom-left and -center tion of this parameter in the literature. Therefore, the current
graphs of Figure 2. Among e-PV technologies, the evolu- version of our plots is focused on indicating the order of mag-
tion of the efficiency since 2010 evidences the apparent satu- nitude of the cell area rather than specific values, which can be
ration and/or stagnation for the performance optimization easier to find at emerging-pv.org. Moreover, we highlight that
of PSCs, DSSCs, CZTS, and Sb2Se3 solar cells, as presented only cells are examined. Although the analysis of PV modules
in the bottom-left graph of Figure 2, which also includes the may be interesting for future versions of the e-PVr, the design
Figure 4. Flexible PVs and their performance parameters as a function of absorber (or bottom junction absorber in case of multijunction devices)
bandgap energy for various photovoltaic technologies: power conversion efficiency (top-left), short-circuit current density (top-right), open-circuit
voltage (bottom-left), fill factor (bottom-center), and efficiency versus area (bottom-right). Experimental data are summarized in Section 7.2 and the
solid, dashed, and dotted lines indicate 100%, 75%, and 55% of the theoretical single junction DB efficiency limit,[13] respectively.
differences of these devices and the volume of data to process DB efficiency limit corresponding to their bottom-subcell
may require a separated section, which lies beyond the scope of bandgap energy (dotted line in the top-left graph of Figure 3).
the present survey. The most significant progress during the last year is among Si/
From the efficiency-area data for the single junction cells in perovskite and all-perovskite tandem solar cells with top certi-
Figure 2, e-PV technologies are still significantly behind estab- fied efficiencies of 29.8% and 28%, as respectively reported by
lished PV technologies, such as silicon and CIGS. Most of the Green et al.,[3] and at least one more cell for each technology
new record performance cells among PSCs, OPVs, and AgBiS2- has attained efficiencies over 26%. These devices present sim-
based devices do not exceed 0.1 cm2, and DSSCs, CZTS, and ilar values of Voc and FF among themselves, and in comparison
SbS cells are just slightly larger but still smaller than 0.5 cm2. with OPV/perovskite and all-OPV tandem cells. Yet, the supe-
Markedly, Peng et al.[19] reported a certified efficiency of 22.97% rior photocurrent of Si/perovskite and all-perovskite tandem
for a 1 cm2 PSC where the electron transport layer was opti- cells is the reason they outperform the other e-PV technologies.
mized by a reverse-doping process to fabricate nitrogen-doped With regard to perovskite/CIGS tandem solar cells the devel-
titanium oxide. This strategy was suggested to reduce electrical opment of new bandgap combinations, using narrow-bandgap
series resistance in favor of FF enhancement. (≈1.01 eV) gallium-free CIS bottom cells, lead to good perfor-
mance of 23.5% certified.[35] In terms of scalability (see bottom-
right plot of Figure 3), only the new cells of Si/perovskite and
2.2. Multijunction Devices (Monolithic) CIGS/perovskite show promising areas equal/close to 1 cm2,
whereas all other devices were tested with areas smaller than
The performance parameters of monolithic/two-terminal mul- 0.1 cm2.
tijunction photovoltaic research cells with up to three junctions Among the champion cells, to start with, we highlight the
are presented in Figure 3 and are put into perspective by com- all-perovskite double junction cell by Lin et al.[36] who reported
parison to the corresponding optimized bandgap DB efficiency a certified efficiency of 26.3%, a value that exceeds 25.7% of the
limit including radiative coupling. Overall, multijunction top efficiency single junction PSC.[3] Their achievement was
e-PV devices continue to show smaller efficiencies in com- based on the development of ammonium-cation-passivated Pb–
parison with established technologies (e.g., GaAs/GaInP, Si/ Sn perovskites with long diffusion lengths, by adding a small
GaInAsP/InGaP) and even with respect to the single junction amount of 4-trifluoromethyl-phenylammonium (CF3-PA) into
the precursor solution. The use of this additive increased not Notably, Zeng et al.[42] fabricated not only a 6 mm2-device
only efficiency but also stability. with the highest efficiency among flexible OPVs (17.5%), but
A Si/perovskite tandem device with 28.84% (28.34% certified) also a 1 cm2 cell with a PCE = 15.82%. In their study, an ionic
efficiency for a device area of 1.2 cm2 has been reported by Mao liquid-type reducing agent containing Cl− and a dihydroxyl
et al.[37] In their study, they optimized the interface between the group was employed to control the reduction process of
silicon and the perovskite subcells by developing a NiOx/2PACz silver in silver-nanowire-based flexible transparent electrodes.
([2-(9H-carbazol-9-yl) ethyl]phosphonic acid) ultrathin hybrid This strategy was suggested to decrease the sheet resistance
hole transport layer above the ITO. The NiOx interlayer facili- and enhance the mechanical stability of the flexible trans-
tates a uniform self-assembly of 2PACz molecules onto the parent electrodes. Regarding the flexibility test, the small-
fully textured surface, thus avoiding direct contact between ITO area device could retain 82.5% of its initial PCE after 6000
and perovskite top-cell for a minimal shunt loss. This approach bending cycles, at a bending radius of 4 mm, and 86.1% after
not only enables highly efficient tandem cells with industrial 1200 bending cycles of complete folding (bending radius of
compatible silicon bottom cells, but also provides an effective 0 mm). Furthermore, the 1-cm2 device retained 78% of its ini-
substitute for the specially prepared tunnel junctions. tial PCE values after 6000 bending cycles, at a bending radius
The first-ever monolithic CIS/perovskite tandem solar of 4 mm.
cell has been reported by Ruiz-Preciado et al.[35] with a PCE Flexible triple junction devices based on emerging technolo-
exceeding 23% (23.5% certified, area: 0.5 cm2). The relatively gies have not been included in the present survey. On the other
planar surface profile and narrow bandgap of the CIS bottom hand, we highlight the exceptional results from Schön et al.,[43]
subcell allowed them to deposit perovskite top subcells of lower who optimized a Ga0.73In0.27As/GaAs/Ga0.51In0.49P device grown
bandgap and with a smaller amount of bromide content, which on 10 µm-thick GaAs substrates for an efficiency of 30.19%
is desirable to reduce photodegradation. under AM0 with 20 cm2. Furthermore, a mass density of only
The triple junction cells show no significant progress in 13.2 mg cm−2 leads to a remarkable power-to-mass ratio of
terms of device performance during the last year. For Si/perov/ 3.0 W g−1.
perov and all-perovskite devices, the top efficiencies are still
20.1%[38] and 19.9%,[39] which are significantly smaller in com-
parison with most of the perovskite-based single and double 4. Transparent and Semitransparent
junction devices. On the other hand, the latest record of GaInP/
Photovoltaic Cells
GaAs/GaInAs photovoltaic cell with a 39.5% efficiency reported
by France et al.[40] is the highest efficiency considered in this Transparency continues to be an import metric, with several
survey. The key strategy for obtaining this result was the modi- key/notable developments. Yet, as defined by our inclusion
fication of the middle subcell bandgap by using thick GaInAs/ criteria, the amount and values of the reports in this e-PVr have
GaAsP strain-balanced quantum wells for improved photo- decreased with respect to the previous version. Figure 5 illus-
voltage and absorption. trates the main performance parameters for each new record
cell as a function of the average visible transmittance and the
bandgap energy. Overall, most of the new reports come from
3. Flexible Photovoltaic Cells OPVs, which is over the same amount of those of PSCs and
DSSCs combined. No significant progress is reported for the
The research on flexible PVs has shown significant activity light utilization efficiency and the significant gap in Voc con-
during the last year, resulting in several new-record-cell reports tinues to be the main feature distinguishing the performance
for almost all the e-PV technologies, as summarized in Figure 4. between PSCs and the other e-PV technologies.
In general, flexible single junction PSCs and all-perovskite Remarkably, Liu et al.[44] reported an OPV device with average
tandem devices present the highest efficiencies (≈75% of the visible transmittance (AVT) = 46.79% and a PCE = 11.44% for a
DB limit) with comparably high FF values. Further, flexible light utilization efficiency (LUE) = 5.35%, which currently is the
OPV shows consolidated progress not only in efficiency (≈55% highest LUE value in our lists. The fabricated cell included a
of the DB limit), but also in scalability with at least one report new design for the transparent rear electrode via integrating an
over 20 cm2. With the lowest performances, new reports of aperiodic band-pass filter of [lithium fluoride [LiF]/tellurium
kesterite and dye-sensitized solar cells are below or in the effi- dioxide[TeO2]]8/LiF produced by thermal evaporation. In addi-
ciency range of 10%. tion, a systematic optimization of the composition ratio and
Among the most remarkable results, Li et al.[41] presented a thickness of the active layer of PM6:BTP-eC9:L8-BO was also
flexible all-perovskite tandem cell with an efficiency of 24.7% required.
(certified as 24.2%) that retains its initial performance after Among PSCs, we also highlight the work by Yu et al.[45] who
10 000 cycles of bending at a radius of 15 mm. Such an achieve- fabricated a semitransparent cell with AVT = 35% and PCE =
ment was possible thanks to the use of a mixture of two hole- 12% for an LUE = 4.2%. This is the second and third highest
selective molecules based on carbazole cores and phosphonic value of LUE among new reports in this survey and all-times
acid anchoring groups to form a self-assembled monolayer that reports for PSCs, respectively. Their optimization approach
connects the perovskite with a low temperature-processed NiO was based on tuning the perovskite composition consisting of
nanocrystal film. With this approach, the hole-selective contact cesium (Cs) and formamidinium (FA), which they suggest to
is suggested to mitigate interfacial recombination and facilitate produce the best device performance over a range of bandgaps.
hole extraction. Furthermore, their CsFA-based semitransparent PSCs show
Figure 5. Best performing transparent and semitransparent PVs: light utilization efficiency versus average visible transmittance (top-left) and photo-
voltaic bandgap energy (top-center); and power conversion efficiency (top-right), open-circuit voltage (bottom-left), short-circuit current density
(bottom-center), and fill factor (bottom-right) as a function of average visible transmittance. Experimental data are summarized in Section 7.3. The
blue solid lines indicate the corresponding theoretical detailed balance efficiency limit for non-wavelength selective PVs.
improved long-term stability under continuous illumination 5. Operational Stability in Emerging Research
and heating. Solar Cells
Achieving the highest AVTs can be challenging in thin film
PV devices due to optical losses of the transparent electrodes Operational stability of e-PV technologies not only continues to
and other functional layers. With an absence of electrodes over be the “Achilles’ heel” in the development of these photovoltaic
the collection area, transparent luminescent solar concentra- devices, but also arguably the most irregularly documented and
tors (TLSCs) can effectively overcome this challenge. Table 22 tackled research subject in the field. Figure 6 summarizes the
summarizes the performance parameters of the devices latest reports with in situ 200 and 1000 h stability tests under
with TLSCs that report the highest photovoltaic efficiencies, continuous illumination, in agreement with our inclusion cri-
measured in agreement with the standard procedure of Yang teria. The latest data relate to single and double-junction per-
et al.[46,47] Note that our list only includes reports published ovskite-based devices. Notably, even though the new report for
until early 2021, since more recent works in the literature focus the stability of the all-perovskite tandem cell attains the highest
on the material and optical properties of the TLSC over the energy yield (left panel in Figure 6), due to the 25.6% of ini-
entire photovoltaic device characterization. Nevertheless, we tial PCE (central panel in Figure 6), its overall degradation rate
highlight the work by Yang et al.[48] that demonstrated TLSCs (right panel in Figure 6) is one of the lowest (largest absolute)
with massive-downshifting phosphorescent nanoclusters and values in this report. This reinforces the general trend already
fluorescent organic molecules as ultraviolet and near-infrared identified in our previous e-PVr for the multijunction perovs-
selective-harvesting luminophores. The design and optimiza- kite-based devices to present lower stability than single junction
tion resulted in dual-band TLSC exhibiting a record PCE = cells.
3.0% with and an AVT = 75% (i.e., LUE of 2.36%) and another Also worth mentioning, Sanchez-Diaz et al.[49] not only fab-
champion TLSC with LUE of 2.61% (PCE = 3.65% with a ricated and measured the device with the smallest degrada-
slightly lower AVT = 71.6%) with large device active area of tion rates (DR200h = 0.006% per day and DR1000h = 0.02% per
25.8 cm2. Notably, these transparent solar cells are the highest week) in this report, but also did it for a lead-free PSCs with a
LUE reported for AVT > 70 for any technology (OPV, DSSC, significantly high initial efficiency of 9.4%. Their achievement
or PSC), and demonstrate a wavelength-selective transparent was possible thanks to the addition of dipropylammonium
photovoltaic device exceeding the non-wavelength-selective iodide (DipI) together with sodium borohydride (NaBH4) as a
practical limit (at high AVT). reducing agent for preventing the premature degradation of
the tin-based perovskite. For the entire stability test, the cell 7. Tables
was kept at maximum power point and the cell was at 96% of
the initial PCE after 1300 h under simulated 1 sun illumination The tables below list the reports on best achievements in most
in N2. of the established and emerging PV technologies as a function
of the device bandgap Eg. Unless noted, the Eg values were esti-
mated by fitting the absorption threshold region of the corre-
6. Conclusions sponding EQE spectra to Equation (2) of Table 1. Note that, for
some absorber materials this definitition may result in a value
In summary, the third version of the emerging-PV reports slightly larger (typically on the order of the thermal energy)
presents a substantial data update to the landscape of achieve- than that of the optical bandgap.[6] The new reports, from arti-
ments in the field of PV research. Among the most signifi- cles published since August 2021, are highlighted in bold. The
cant and positive trends, we have evidenced the boom in PCE older reports, from articles published since August 2021, which
increase of OPVs and the continuous progress of the perovs- were already included in our previous surveys are referenced to
kite-based tandem solar cells. Further new record performance the corresponding ePVr. By contrast, each older report that was
reports have occurred among single junction PSCs, with spe- missed in the corresponding previous e-PVr, is now included
cial interest among lead-free devices. with its corresponding individual citation. All the citations
Negatively, no significant recent progress has been found and further data and visualization tools can be found at the
among triple junction e-PV technologies and the overall field emerging-pv.org website.
of transparent and semitransparent PVs. Similarly, but rein- In the case of PCE reports of PSCs showing hysteresis
forcing a previously known trend, the studies on performance behavior in the J–V characteristic, while sweeping voltage in
stability continue to be scarce and/or poorly described, which different directions and/or scan rates, the lower PCE value has
hinders the analysis and comparison of the results within been considered in each case. Further details are in Section S1.1
the literature. On the latter, we repeatedly encourage the PV of the Supporting Information.
research community to use dimensional and performance- The FF values have been automatically corrected to match
limit-normalized parameters (e.g., DRΔτ, EΔτ) rather than, or the reported values of PCE, Jsc, and Voc under standard
in addition to, relative percentages in the degradation and opti- 100 mW cm−2 illumination of AM1.5G spectrum. For some
mization studies. reports, this has introduced up to ±0.5% discrepancies
Figure 6. Operationally most stable emerging PVs for each technology during 200 h (top) and 1000 h (bottom) of testing: stability test energy yield
(Equation (6) of Table 1) as a function of bandgap energy (left), final power conversion efficiency as a function of the initial value (center), and overall
degradation rate (Equation (7) of Table 1) as a function of initial power conversion efficiency (right). The experimental data are summarized in Sec-
tion 7.4 and the solid blue lines in the STEY panel (left) are the corresponding DB theoretical limits. The diagonal dot-dot-dashed lines in the middle
panel indicate where the final efficiencies equal the initial values. The positive values above the horizontal dotted lines in the degradation rate panel
(right) indicates that PCE increases with respect to the initial values.
between the values in our tables and those informed in the Table 3. Continued.
original publications due to differences in the rounding
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber perovskite Refs.
digits and/or typos in the original manuscripts. Cells with [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
mismatches >0.5% may have been discarded (see Section
1.41 5.9 487 20.0 60.6 FA1-xRbxSnI3 [2]
S1.5, Supporting Information).
For the transparent/semitransparent cells, note that the AVT 1.42 14.3 920 20.4 76.2 FASnI3 [51]
values may differ from those reported in the original manu- 1.42 14.4 820 22.4 78.0 MAPb0.75Sn0.25I3 [2]
scripts when a definition different than that of Equation (4) in 1.42 13.2 840 20.3 78.0 EA0.098EDA0.01FA0.882SnI3 [2]
Table 1 was used in the original published article.
1.43 12.4 949 17.4 74.9 FA0.85PEA0.15SnI3:NH4SCN [2]a)
1.44 12.3 750 21.7 75.3 EA0.098EDA0.01FA0.882SnI3 [52]
7.1. Highest Efficiency Research Solar Cells Tables 1.44 10.1 642 22.2 70.8 Cs0.2FA0.8SnI3 [2]a)
1.44 10.2 638 22.0 72.5 FASnI3:FOEI [2]a)
Tables 3–10 summarize the experimental data of the highest
1.45 13.6 840 22.9 70.8 FASnI3 [53]
efficiency research solar cells.
1.48 6.0 460 23.9 53.9 CsSnI3 [2]
1.49 22.3 1090 26.3 78.0 FA0.6MA0.4PbI3 (sc) [2]
Table 3. Single junction perovskite research solar cells with the highest 1.51 19.3 1047 23.8 77.5 FA0.6MA0.4PbI3 [2]
efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device absorber
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). 1.52 22.0 1120 24.9 78.6 FA0.85MA0.15PbI3 [2]
1.52 25.3 1150 26.2 83.9 Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.05Rb0.05PbBr0. [22]
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber perovskite Refs. 15I2.85
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
1.52 24.1 1161 25.4 81.4 Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.05Rb0.05PbBr0. [22]a)
1.12 12.4 967 17.5 72.9 MAPb0.5Sn0.5Br3:Bi3+:BA2MA4 [23] 15I2.85
Sn5I16
1.53 24.0 1180 24.9 81.7 FAxMA1-xPbI3 [54]
1.18 24.3 1070 29.1 78.0 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.7Sn0.3I3/ [24]
1.53 24.5 1158 25.3 83.8 FA0.97MA0.03PbI2.91Br0.09 [55]
BTBTI:PCBM
1.53 24.5 1185 26.1 79.1 α-FAPbI3 [2]
1.18 23.4 1067 28.9 75.8 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.7Sn0.3I3/ [24]a)
BTBTI:PCBM 1.53 25.2 1174 26.2 81.8 α-FAPbI3 [2]a)
1.25 20.7 843 30.6 80.2 FA0.6MA0.4Pb0.4Sn0.6I3 [2] 1.53 25.4 1174 26.4 81.9 FAPbI3 [17]
b) [2]a)
1.25 22.2 841 33.0 80.0 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [36] 1.53 25.5 1189 25.7 83.2
1.26 20.4 834 30.5 80.2 GuaSCN:FA0.6 MA0.4Sn0.6Pb0.4I3 [2] 1.54 24.6 1181 26.2 79.6 FAPbI3 [2]a)
1.27 20.9 827 31.4 80.5 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [2] 1.54 25.6 1182 26.2 82.6 FAPbI3: (PbI2)2RbCl [56]a)
1.28 20.6 842 30.6 80.1 FSA: FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [2]a) 1.54 24.3 1141 25.7 82.6 Cs0.03FA0.97 Pb Br0.09I2.91 [57]
b) [3]a)
1.28 21.7 850 31.6 80.8 FSA: FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [2] 1.54 25.7 1179 25.8 84.5
1.29 23.3 880 32.8 80.8 Cs0.025FA0.475MA0.5Pb0.5Sn0.5I2.9 [50] 1.55 24.1 1158 25.3 82.3 FA0.95MA0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 [58]
25Br0.075 1.56 25.1 1195 24.9 84.4 FA0.995MA0.005PbBr0.015I0.985 [59]
1.30 18.8 820 29.6 77.3 FA0.6MA0.4Pb0.4Sn0.6I3 [2] b)
1.56 25.2 1180 24.1 84.8 [2]a)
1.30 17.1 840 27.9 73.0 Cs0.05FA0.8MA0.15Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 [2]
1.56 25.2 1181 25.1 84.8 FAMAPb(IBrCl)3 [2]a)
1.31 5.0 420 23.8 50.3 CsSnI3 [2]c)
1.56 25.3 1193 25.1 84.6 FAMAPb(IBrCl)3 [2]
1.31 7.1 486 22.9 64.0 MASnI3 [2]c)
1.57 23.0 1170 24.1 81.6 Cs0.05FA0.88MA0.07PbBr0.24I2.76 [2]
1.31 14.1 740 26.7 71.4 Cs0.25FA0.75Pb0.5 Sn0.5I3 [2]
1.57 23.0 1147 25.1 79.9 FA0.95MA0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 [60]a)
1.32 11.6 720 23.4 68.9 MAPb0.4Sn0.6 Br0.2I2.8 [2]
1.57 23.4 1153 25.2 80.6 Cs0.05FA0.75MA0.15Rb0.05PbBr0. [61]
1.33 7.5 450 24.9 67.0 CsSnI3:MBAA [2] 15I2.85
1.34 10.0 767 20.5 63.6 MAPb0.4Sn0.6I3 [2] 1.58 22.9 1173 23.4 80.0 Cs0.05FA0.9MA0.05PbBr0.26I2.74 [19]
1.34 12.1 780 20.7 75.1 MAPb0.4Sn0.6I2.6Br0.4 [2] 1.58 22.6 1186 24.2 78.6 FA0.92MA0.08PbBr0.24I2.76 [2]a)
b)
1.35 16.3 780 26.5 79.0 FAPb0.7Sn0.3I3 [2] 1.58 22.6 1178 22.73 84.4 [2]a)
1.36 8.2 630 19.7 66.1 CsSnI3 [2] 1.59 21.1 1086 24.0 81.0 MAPb0.9Sn0.05Cu0.05I2.9Br0.1 [2]
1.37 14.7 737 27.1 73.6 FA0.3MA0.7Pb0.7Sn0.3I3 [2] 1.59 21.0 1140 23.7 77.7 FA0.85MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.55 [2]a)
1.38 17.3 810 28.2 75.4 FAPb0.75Sn0.25I3 [2] 1.60 21.9 1192 22.8 80.6 GA(MA)5Pb5I16 [62]
1.38 15.2 800 26.2 72.5 MAPb0.75Sn0.25I3 [2] 1.60 21.9 1131 23.1 83.7 CsMAFAPbI3:PPP [2]
1.39 20.6 1020 26.6 76.0 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.7Sn0.3I3 [2] 1.60 20.3 1130 23.2 77.4 MAPbI3-xClx [2]a)
1.40 8.2 745 17.8 61.8 MAPb0.6Sn0.4I3 [2] 1.61 21.4 1120 23.1 82.9 MAPbI3 [2]c)
1.40 10.1 655 22.1 69.6 FASnI3 + DipI + NaBH4 [49] 1.61 21.5 1192 21.6 83.6 Cs0.05FA0.88MA0.07PbBr0.44I2.56 [2]a)
Table 3. Continued. Table 3. Continued.
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber perovskite Refs. Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber perovskite Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
1.61 23.2 1240 22.1 84.5 Cs0.05FA0.88MA0.07PbBr0.44I2.56 [2] 1.90 16.1 1320 15.3 79.7 CsPbI2Br [2]
1.61 22.6 1200 24.0 78.5 Cs0.07FA0.765MA0.135Rb0.03PbBr0 [2] 1.91 14.4 1312 15.6 70.1 FA0.17Cs0.83PbI1.2Br1.8 [2]
.45I2.55 1.91 14.2 1160 15.7 77.9 CsPbI2Br [2]
1.62 21.7 1180 22.5 81.7 MAPbI3-DAP [2] 1.91 2.0 620 5.4 60.8 MA3Sb2I9 + HI [2]c)
1.63 20.3 1130 23.4 76.8 Cs0.05FA0.76MA0.19PbBr0.6I2.4 [2]
1.94 13.4 1240 14.2 76.0 CsPbI1.8Br1.2 [70]
1.64 22.4 1130 23.7 83.8 Cs0.05MA0.1425FA0.8075PbBr0.45I2.55 [63] 1.98 8.3 1080 12.3 62.0 CsPbBr2I [2]
1.64 20.4 1140 23.6 75.8 Cs0.05FA0.79MA0.16PbBr0.51I2.49 [2] 2.00 9.6 1185 11.2 72.3 Cs0.15FA0.85PbBr2.1I0.9 [2]
1.65 21.9 1230 21.2 84.0 Cs0.1FA0.2MA0.7PbBr0.45I0.2.55 [64] 2.03 2.8 836 6.4 52.7 MAPbBr1.77I1.23 [2]
1.65 16.2 1109 19.6 74.2 MAPbI1–xBrx [2]a) 2.04 10.3 1340 9.7 79.2 MAPb(I0.3Br0.7)xCl3–x [2]
1.66 10.4 904 16.3 70.4 MAPbBr0.39I2.51 [2] 2.05 6.1 1450 5.4 77.1 MAPbBr2I [2]
1.67 17.9 1190 18.4 81.9 (PEA)2(MA)3Pb4I13:NH4I0.2Cl0.8 [2] 2.09 10.2 1270 11.5 69.4 CsPbBr2I [2]
1.68 20.7 1220 21.3 79.7 Cs0.05MA0.15FA0.8PbBr0.75I2.25 [2] 2.10 10.7 1261 11.8 72.0 CsPbBr2I [2]
1.69 7.1 936 10.4 63.0 MAPbBr0.78I2.22 [2] 2.11 9.2 1200 10.2 74.6 GAI-DEE-CsPbBr2I [2]
1.70 20.2 1176 20.8 82.5 CsPbI3 [65] 2.14 3.1 650 8.1 58.4 MASbSI2 [2]
1.70 20.1 1177 20.6 82.8 CsPbI3 [65]a),d) 2.15 4.4 1084 6.3 64.8 FA0.85MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.55; R = 0.7 [2]
1.70 16.9 1170 20.2 71.5 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr0.75I2.25 [2] 2.19 2.0 1051 3.0 69.5 FA0.85MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.55; R = 0.56 [2]
1.71 14.6 1056 17.5 79.0 CsPbI3 [2] 2.20 8.9 1639 7.7 70.6 FAPbBr3 [71]
1.72 18.6 1244 19.2 77.9 Cs0.83FA0.17PbBr0.8I2.2 [2] 2.27 10.6 1552 8.9 76.5 FAPbBr3 [2]
1.72 18.3 1350 17.6 77.0 MAPbBr0.6I2.4 [2] 2.28 10.5 1520 8.3 83.0 CsPbBr3 [72]
1.72 17.1 1200 19.4 73.5 Cs0.17FA0.83PbBr1.2I1.8 [2] 2.29 10.2 1650 8.7 71.1 MAPbBr3 [73]
1.74 18.3 1269 18.9 76.3 Cs0.095MA0.1425FA0.7125Rb0.05PbBrI2 [2] 2.31 9.7 1458 8.1 81.9 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.74 20.2 1210 19.3 86.5 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr0.9I2.1 [20] 2.32 10.1 1653 7.7 79.1 MAPbBr3 [2]
1.75 19.8 1310 19.4 78.0 Cs0.17FA0.83Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 [2] 2.33 8.5 1580 6.6 82.0 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.76 18.5 1210 20.0 76.4 Cs0.05FA0.79MA0.16PbBr1.2I1.8 [2] 2.33 8.2 1470 7.3 76.1 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.77 18.6 1234 18.3 82.5 CsPbI3–xBrx [2] 2.34 10.7 1635 7.8 84.1 CsPbBr3 [74]
1.78 17.3 1227 17.4 81.2 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.14I1.86 [36] 2.34 10.1 1602 7.9 80.0 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.79 19.0 1250 19.0 80.0 Cs0.12MA0.05FA0.83PbBr1.2I1.8 [2] 2.34 9.7 1584 7.4 82.8 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.79 17.7 1255 17.4 81.1 Cs0.4DMA0.1FA0.5PbBr0.71Cl0.15I2.14 [66] 2.35 10.7 1622 7.9 83.5 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.79 16.5 1284 17.2 74.8 Cs0.17FA0.83PbBr1.2I1.8 [2] 2.35 10.6 1610 7.8 84.4 CsSnBr3 [2]
1.80 13.7 1272 14.4 75.0 MAPbBrI2 [2] 2.35 10.2 1611 7.8 81.0 CsPbBr3 [75]
1.81 16.3 1220 17.0 78.6 Cs0.4FA0.6PbBr1.05I1.95 [2] 2.36 10.3 1570 8.2 79.6 CsPb0.97Tb0.03Br3 [76]
1.82 17.2 1266 16.8 80.9 Cs0.35FA0.65PbBr1.2I1.8 [67] 2.36 4.0 1130 5.5 63.6 CsPbBr2.9I0.1 [2]
1.83 16.9 1240 16.9 80.7 FA0.6MA0.4PbBr1.2I1.8 [68] 2.37 2.2 690 5.0 63.5 MA3Sb2ClxI9–x [2]
1.84 15.2 1260 15.6 77.3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8-DAP [2] 2.38 8.1 1490 6.9 78.8 CsPbBr3 [2]
1.85 15.0 1296 15.6 74.2 Cs0.17FA0.83PbI1.5Br1.5 [2] 2.41 2.7 1020 5.2 51.2 Cs2AgBiBr6 [2]
1.86 17.0 1340 15.9 79.8 CsPbBr0.75I2.25-0.5FAOAc [2] 2.42 1.1 870 2.9 43.0 BdAPbI4 [2]
1.87 14.0 1280 14.0 78.1 CsBa0.2Pb0.8BrI2 [2] 2.43 2.8 820 5.7 60.3 CsPb2Br5 [2]
1.87 13.7 1220 14.6 76.8 CsEu0.05Pb0.95BrI2 [2] 2.44 2.4 1140 3.4 60.9 FAPbBr2.1Cl0.9 [2]
1.88 17.4 1420 15.0 81.4 CsPbBrI2 [69] 2.45 2.9 1010 4.1 70.9 Cs2AgBiBr6 [2]
1.89 16.0 1310 15.8 77.5 CsPbBrI2 [2] 2.48 1.4 1060 2.5 52.0 FAPbBr2Cl [2]
1.89 15.6 1300 15.3 78.3 CsPbBr(Ac)xI2–x [2] a)Certified efficiency; b)Exception included as a material highlight; c)Exception
a) included as a PCE highlight without the absorber information; d)PCE from J–V with
1.90 15.0 1240 16.0 75.6 InCl3:CsPbI2Br [2]
significant hysteresis and MPP tracking closer to the listed value; sc, single crystal.
Table 4. Single junction organic research solar cells with the highest Table 4. Continued.
efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device absorber
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber blend Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%] 1.45 19.6 896 26.7 81.9 PM6:D18:L8-BO [25]
1.22 13.4 663 30.0 67.1 BTB7-Th:ATT-9 [27] 1.45 19.1 918 26.9 77.3 D18:L8-BO [26]
1.32 13.0 916 20.2 70.1 BTR:Y6:bisPC71BM [78] 1.45 19.2 891 26.7 80.7 PM6:D18:L8-BO [25]a)
1.46 18.2 897 25.7 78.9 b) [2]a)

1.32 10.6 690 24.3 63.2 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [2]
1.46 16.8 949 23.7 74.4 PM6:PY-DT [95]
1.33 13.9 865 22.4 71.4 BTR:MeIC:Y11 [79]
1.47 14.6 882 23.1 71.7 PBDB-T-2Cl:BP-4F:MF1 [2]
1.34 12.8 712 27.3 65.9 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [2]
1.48 12.4 880 20.8 67.7 PBDB-T:IDT-EDOT:PC71BM [2]
1.35 17.0 804 27.2 76.4 PM6:mBzS-4F [2]
1.50 15.4 920 22.6 74.1 PM6:DTTC-4Cl [2]
1.35 15.9 820 26.3 73.4 PM6:Y6 [2]
1.51 13.3 780 22.9 75.0 PM6:SeTlC4Cl-DIO [2]
1.36 15.9 846 25.4 74.1 PM6:Y11 [2]a)
1.52 10.4 850 18.0 68.0 PBDB-T:IDT-EDOT:PC71BM [2]
1.37 18.3 856 26.9 79.4 PM6:BTP-eC9:PC71BM [2]
1.53 10.7 850 22.2 56.7 PM6:SeTlC4Cl [2]
1.38 18.2 857 27.4 77.6 PM6:BTP-T-3Cl:BTP-4Cl-BO [80]
1.54 13.6 940 19.5 73.8 BTR:NITI:PC71BM [2]
1.38 18.8 861 27.5 79.4 PM6:BTP-eC9:BTP-S9 [81]
1.55 12.0 840 19.5 73.3 PM6:IT-4F [2]
1.38 18.7 853 27.4 80.0 PM6:BTP-eC9:L8-BO-F [82]
1.56 12.1 826 20.9 70.1 PBDB-T-2F:IT-4F [2]
1.38 18.2 847 27.3 78.8 PM6:BTP-eC9:L8-BO-F [82]a)
1.58 13.9 950 21.7 67.4 PM6:DTTC-4F [2]
1.38 18.7 862 27.4 79.3 PM6:BTP-eC9:BTP-S9 [81]a)
1.58 13.5 880 20.6 74.53 PBDB-T-SF:IT-4F [2]
1.39 18.1 848 27.5 77.5 PM6:Y6-1O:BO-4Cl [83]a)
1.61 13.4 940 20.2 70.5 PM6:DTC-4F [2]
1.39 18.2 859 27.7 76.6 D18:Y6 [2]a)
1.61 12.1 916 18.1 73.0 PBDB-T-2Cl:MF1 [2]
1.39 18.5 855 27.5 78.9 PM6:Y6-1O:BO-4Cl [83] b)
1.62 11.0 793 19.4 71.5 [2]a)
1.39 18.4 858 26.9 79.7 PB2:PBDB-TF:BTP-eC9 [84] 1.62 12.2 930 17.5 75.0 PTQ10:IDTPC [2]
1.39 18.3 872 26.6 78.9 PM6:BTP-eC11:BTP-S2 [85] 1.63 12.8 910 19.1 73.6 PTQ10:IDIC-2F [2]
1.39 18.2 863 27.1 77.9 PM6:BTP-eC9:ZY-4Cl [86]a) 1.64 12.9 960 17.4 71.3 PTQ10:IDIC [2]
1.39 18.7 863 27.4 79.0 PM6:BTP-eC9:ZY-4Cl [86] 1.65 9.3 820 16.5 68.7 J51:ITIC [2]
1.40 19.1 869 27.5 79.9 PBDB-TF:L8-BO:BTP-eC9 [87]a) 1.66 12.1 815 20.3 73.2 b) [2]a)
1.40 19.4 863 27.6 81.2 PBDB-TF:L8-BO:BTP-eC9 [87] 1.67 10.2 810 21.0 59.9 P4TIF:PC61BM [2]
b) [2]a)
1.40 18.1 867 26.8 78.0 PM6:AC9 [88]a) 1.67 11.5 791 19.7 73.7
1.40 18.1 868 26.4 78.8 PM6:CNS-6-8:Y6:PC71BM [89] 1.68 12.0 1030 18.5 63.0 PBDTTT-EFT:EHIDTBR [2]
1.40 18.4 871 26.8 79.1 PM6:AC9 [88] 1.69 8.9 878 13.9 72.9 PBT1-C:NFA [2]
b) [2]a)
1.40 18.3 845 27.5 78.8 PTzBI-dF:BTP-TBr [90] 1.70 11.1 867 17.8 71.9
b)
1.41 17.6 871 26.4 76.8 D18-Cl:PM6:Y6 [2] 1.72 10.0 899 16.8 66.4 [2]a)
1.76 9.6 786 17.0 72.0 PPDT2FBT:PC70BM [2]

1.41 18.1 860 26.5 79.4 PM6:PB2F:BTP-eC9 [91]
1.79 7.5 1140 10.6 62.1 BDT-ffBX-DT:PDI4 [2]
1.41 19.0 879 26.7 81.0 PBQx-TF:eC9-2Cl:F-BTA3 [92]
1.79 6.2 1230 8.9 56.6 BDT-ffBX-DT:SFPDI [2]
1.41 18.7 878 26.8 79.4 PBQx-TF:eC9-2Cl:F-BTA3 [92]a)
1.85 9.0 900 13.8 72.9 BTR:PC71BM [2]
1.42 15.6 834 24.9 75.1 PBDB-TF:BTP-4F [2]
1.85 7.6 830 13.3 69.1 PBDB-T:PC71BM [2]
b) [2]a)
1.42 15.6 838 25.0 74.4
1.86 7.4 940 12.7 61.9 PBDB-T:NDP-Se-DIO [2]
1.43 18.2 880 25.9 80.1 PBDB-T-2F:BTP-4F-P2EH [93]
1.88 5.7 950 10.7 55.9 PBDB-T-2Cl:PC61BM [2]
1.43 14.3 820 24.9 70.0 PM6:IDST-4F [2]
1.93 6.3 790 12.2 65.3 P3HT:TCBD14 [2]
1.44 16.1 955 22.7 74.3 PM6:PY-IT:BN-T [2]
2.01 3.7 592 10.4 59.2 P3HT:PCBM [2]
1.44 18.6 893 26.0 80.0 PM6:L8-BO [94]
a)Certified
efficiency; b)Exception included as a PCE highlight without the absorber
1.44 18.2 883 26.1 79.0 PM6:L8-BO [94]a) information.
Table 5. Single junction dye sensitized research solar cells with the Table 6. Single junction research solar cells with the highest efficiency:
highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap
absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). energy (from EQE spectrum) among several inorganic emerging
technologies.
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Sensitizing Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%] dye Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber material/technology Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
b) [2]a)
1.44 11.0 714 21.9 70.3
0.98 11.2 430 39.2 66.8 Cu2ZnSn(Se,S)4 [2]
b)
1.52 11.4 743 21.3 71.9 [2]a) 1.02 11.6 441 39.2 67.4 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]
1.59 10.1 710 18.5 76.9 TF-tBu_C3F7 [2] 1.03 11.6 423 40.6 67.3 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]a)
1.66 13.0 910 18.1 78.0 SM315 [96] 1.04 9.6 425 34.9 64.5 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]
1.05 9.4 457 32.5 63.3 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]

1.66 10.7 849 16.6 75.9 bJS2 [2]
1.06 9.5 460 31.1 66.4 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]
1.74 7.8 694 15.4 72.7 YD2 [2]
1.06 13.2 477 40.1 69.0 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]
1.75 10.9 745 20.7 70.8 YKP-88/YKP-137 (6/4) [2]
1.06 12.7 461 40.4 68.3 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]a)
1.76 12.0 960 15.9 79.0 SM371 [96] 1.07 12.5 491 37.4 68.2 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]a)
1.77 10 740 18.1 74.7 N719 [2] 1.08 12.4 522 33.3 71.3 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]
1.79 9.9 740 19.0 70.5 PI-COF:N719 [97] 1.09 12.2 475 37.2 68.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]
1.09 12.5 540 32.1 72.1 (Ag,Cu)2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]

1.80 9.1 744 19.0 64.0 N719 [2]
1.10 13.6 538 36.2 69.9 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [3]
1.80 9.0 790 19.8 57.2 N719 [2]
1.11 13.1 547 34.3 70.0 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [28]
1.80 6.5 663 13.3 74.5 SK7 [2]
1.11 12.8 526 35.3 68.9 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [28]a)
1.81 8.5 700 19.4 62.6 N719 [98] 1.12 12.3 527 32.3 72.3 Cu2Zn(Sn0.78Ge0.22)Se4 [2]
1.82 6.4 680 13.1 71.8 AN-11 [2] 1.13 12.6 513 35.2 69.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]a)
1.83 15.2 1063 18.0 79.4 SL9 + SL10/BPHA [14]a) 1.13 11.1 460 34.5 69.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]a)
1.14 12.6 541 35.4 65.9 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]a)

1.83 8.9 820 19.0 57.5 N719 [2]
1.16 11.2 539 33.1 62.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]
1.85 12.3 1020 15.2 79.1 b) [2]a)
1.22 7.5 413 28.9 62.4 Sb2Se3 [2]
1.86 8.3 782 14.8 71.7 N719 [2]
1.24 9.2 400 32.6 70.6 Sb2Se3 [2]
1.87 9.1 1060 11.2 76.7 L351 [2] 1.27 4.8 370 27.3 47.3 Sb2Se3 [2]
1.88 7.8 730 14.3 74.7 TY4 [2] 1.29 4.0 340 22.9 51.0 Sb2Se3 [2]
1.93 11.2 1140 13.0 75.6 L350 [2] 1.31 7.3 420 29.2 59.7 Sb2Se3 [2]
1.33 8.6 520 27.8 59.8 Sb2Se3 [100]

1.97 3.0 600 6.3 79.4 AN-14 [2]
1.37 7.1 480 24.7 60.0 AgBiS2 [101]
1.99 5.4 689 11.3 69.5 SK6 [2]
1.39 8.9 482 26.8 68.5 AgBiS2 [32]a)
2.00 6.3 732 12.0 71.7 CW10 + SK6 [2]
1.39 9.2 495 27.1 68.4 AgBiS2 [32]
2.01 9.2 1160 11 72.1 L349 [2] 1.45 8.5 625 24.4 55.7 Cu2ZnGeSe4 [2]
2.02 8.1 760 14.3 75.0 TY6 [2] 1.50 11.0 731 21.7 69.3 Cu2ZnSnS4 [2]a)
1.50 10.0 655 24.1 63.3 Sb2(S,Se)3 [31]a)

2.05 3.9 680 7.4 77.5 AN-12 [2]
1.52 8.7 664 20.6 63.9 (Cu0.99Ag0.01)1.85(Zn0.8Cd0.2)1.1SnS4 [2]
2.09 6.9 780 11.6 76.3 TY3 [2]
1.53 4.1 473 14.8 58.7 SbSeI:Sb2Se3 [2]
2.12 5.8 739 10.8 72.7 CW10 [2]
1.54 10.7 673 23.7 66.8 Sb2(S,Se)3 [15]
2.15 4.1 640 8.76 73.6 PS1 [99] 1.54 9.7 638 23.2 65.5 Sb2(S,Se)3 [102]
2.23 5.8 760 10.2 74.8 MS3 [2] 1.55 10.5 664 23.8 66.3 Sb2(S,Se)3 [30]
2.32 5.3 1170 6.4 70.8 L348 [2] 1.73 8.0 757 60.5 17.4 Sb2S3 [103]
1.80 7.5 711 16.1 65.0 Sb2S3 [2]

a)Certified
efficiency; b)Exception included as a PCE highlight without the absorber
information. a)Certified
efficiency.
Table 7. Single junction research solar cells with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device absorber bandgap energy
(from EQE spectrum) among established technologies.
Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Absorber material/ Refs.
technology
1.09 19.8 716 34.9 79.2 CIGS [2]a)
1.10 21.7 718 40.7 74.3 CIGS [2]a)
1.11 26.7 738 42.7 84.9 Si [2]a)
1.13 22.9 744 38.8 79.5 CIGS [2]a)
1.14 21.0 757 35.7 77.6 CIGS [2]a)
1.15 23.4 734 39.6 80.4 CIGS [2]a)
1.18 20.0 706 40.7 69.7 Si [16]
1.30 16.3 762 31.4 68.1 CIGS [2]
1.42 29.1 1127 29.8 86.7 GaAs [2]a)
1.42 21.0 876 30.3 79.4 CdTe [2]a)
1.48 18.3 857 27.0 77.0 CdTe [2]a)
1.60 15.2 902 23.1 73 CIGS [2]
1.60 10.2 896 16.4 69.8 Si (amorphous) [2]a)
1.69 10.6 896 16.1 75.6 Si (amorphous) [2]
1.85 10.1 886 16.8 67.0 Si (amorphous) [2]a)
a)
Certified efficiency
Table 8. Monolithic multijunction perovskite-based research solar cells with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of the
device bandgap energies (from EQE spectra) of the subcells.
Eg,bottom [eV] Eg,middle, Eg,top PCE Voc Jsc FF Bottom absorber material Middle, top absorber material(s) Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
Si/perovskite
1.11 1.63 24.1 1786 19.5 69.1 Si CsxFA1−xPb(I,Br)3 [2]
1.11 1.66 26.0 1820 19.2 75.4 Si Cs0.1MA0.9PbBr0.3I2.7 [2]
1.11 1.67 26.7 1756 19.2 79.2 Si PEA(I0.25SCN0.75) [2]
1.11 1.68 25.7 1781 19.1 75.4 Si Cs0.05 FA0.8MA0.15PbBr0.75 I2.25 [2]a)
b)
1.11 1.69 29.8 1190 19.5 79.8 Si [3]a)
1.12 1.64 26.0 1760 19.2 76.5 Si FA0.83MA0.17PbI3 [2]
1.12 1.65 26.5 1760 19.4 77.0 Si Cs0.05 FA0.79MA0.16PbBr0.51 I2.49 [2]
c)
1.12 1.68 28.8 (29.2) 1895 19.2 78.9 Si Cs0.05FA0.73MA0.22 Pb Br0.69I2.31 [2]
1.13 1.67 28.3 1776 20.1 79.6 Si FAMAPb(BrClI)3 [37]a)
1.13 1.65 24.9 1735 19.5 73.5 Si CsFAPb(BrI)3 [2]
1.13 1.67 27.1 1886 19.1 75.3 Si CsFAMAPb(BrClI)3 [2]

b)
1.13 1.69 29.5 1884 20.3 77.3 Si [2]
1.14 1.68 27.5 1779 19.6 78.9 Si Cs0.22FA0.78PbBr0.45Cl0.09I2.55 [104]

b) [3]a)
1.14 1.69 26.8 1891 17.8 79.4 Si
1.14 1.69 26.0 1780 18.2 80.2 Si Cs0.15FA0.7055MA0.1445PbBr0.6I2.4 [105]
1.15 1.62 20.9 1690 15.9 77.6 Si MAPbI3 [2]
1.15 1.68 25.4 1800 17.8 79.4 Si Cs0.15FA0.71MA0.14PbBr0.6I2.4 [2]
1.15 1.68 25.0 1770 18.4 77.0 Si Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr0.6 I2.4 [2]
1.16 1.62 19.2 1701 16.1 70.1 Si MAPbI3 [2]
Table 8. Continued.
Eg,bottom [eV] Eg,middle, Eg,top PCE Voc Jsc FF Bottom absorber material Middle, top absorber material(s) Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
GaAs/perovskite
1.42 1.85 24.3 2160 14.3 78.8 GaAs Cs0.16FA0.80MA0.04PbBr1.50I1.50 [2]
CIGS/perovskite
1.01 1.61 24.3 1570 21.0 73.6 CuInSe2 Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.1PbI2.7Br0.3 [35]
1.01 1.61 23.5 1590 19.4 75.5 CuInSe2 Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.1PbI2.7Br0.3 [35]a)
1.10 1.65 22.4 1774 17.3 73.1 CIGS Cs0.09FA0.77MA0.14PbBr0.42I2.58 [2]b)
1.11 1.64 21.6 1580 18.0 76.0 CIGS Cs0.05FA0.7885MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 [2]

b)
1.12 1.68 24.2 1768 19.2 72.9 CIGS [2]a)
Perovskite/perovskite
c) [36]a),d)
1.25 1.80 26.3 (26.4) 2044 16.5 78.1 Cs0.2FA0.8 Pb Br1.14I1.86 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3
1.26 1.79 23.1 1950 15.8 75.0 FA0.66MA0.34Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.05(FAMA0.95)K0.05Pb(BrI)3 [107]

b) b) [3]a)
1.26 1.80 28.0 2125 16.42 80.2
1.26 1.80 26.2 2040 16 80.1 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.4DMA0.1FA0.5PbBr0.71Cl0.15I2.14 [66]
1.26 1.82 24.0 1986 15.8 76.6 FSA:FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]a)
1.26 1.82 25.5 2009 15.9 79.8 FSA:FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]
1.27 1.72 22.9 1915 15.0 79.8 FA0.6MA0.4Pb0.4Sn0.6I3 Cs0.05FA0.8MA0.15 Pb Br0.45I2.55 [2]
1.27 1.81 24.3 2030 15.2 78.8 Cs0.05FA0.5MA0.45Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.4FA0.6PbBr1.05I1.95 [2]
1.27 1.81 24.5 1927 15.9 80.0 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]a)
1.27 1.82 23.2 1890 15.4 79.8 Cs0.2FA0.8Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [108]
1.28 1.73 23.1 1880 16.0 77.0 Cs0.25FA0.75Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.3DMA0.1 FA0.6PbBr0.6I2.4 [2]
OPV/perovskite
1.21 1.83 21.7 1880 15.7 73.5 PTB7-Th:BTPV-4Cl-eC9 FA0.6MA0.4PbBr1.2I1.8 [68]
1.25 1.91 15.0 1710 12.0 73.4 PTB7-Th:COi8DFIC:PC71BM CsPbBrI2 [2]
1.38 1.91 21.1 1960 13.3 80.9 PM6:Y6-BO CsPbBrI2 [2]

b) b) [3]a)
1.38 1.88 23.4 2136 14.6 75.2
1.40 1.83 15.1 1850 11.5 71.0 PBDB-T:SN6IC-4F Cs0.1FA0.54MA0.36PbBr1.4I1.8 [2]
1.40 1.82 19.5 1925 13.1 77.2 PBDBT-2F:Y6:PC71BM Cs0.18FA0.8MA0.02PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]a)
1.40 1.82 20.4 1902 13.1 81.5 PBDBT-2F:Y6:PC71BM Cs0.18FA0.8MA0.02PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]
DSSC/perovskite
1.59 1.93 10.5 1170 12.9 70.0 FA0.85MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.49 N719 [2]
Triple-junction
1.13 1.54, 1.91 20.1 2740 8.5 86.0 Si Cs0.1FA0.9PbI3, Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.65I1.35 [38]
1.23 1.57, 1.78 16.8 2780 7.4 81 FA0.66MA0.34Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 FA0.66MA0.34 Pb Br0.15I2.85, Cs0.1FA0.594MA0. [109]
306PbBrI2
1.26 1.65, 2.06 19.9 2793 8.8 80.7 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.05FA0.95PbBr0.45 I2.55, Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr2.1I0.9 [39]
a)Certified efficiency; b)Exception included as a PCE highlight without the absorber material information; c)In the parenthesis the certified efficiency from MPP tracking.
Table 9. Monolithic multijunction organic- and dye sensitized-based research solar cells with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a
function of the device bandgap energies (from EQE spectra) of the subcells.
Eg,bottom [eV] Eg,top [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Bottom absorber Top absorber Refs.
OPV/OPV
1.23 1.66 16.4 1650 14.5 68.5 PTB7-Th:BTPV-4F:PC71BM PM6:m-DTC-2F [2]
1.24 1.72 17.3 1640 14.4 73.3 PTB7-Th:O6T-4F:PC71BM PBDB-T:F-M [2]
1.31 1.64 15.9 1660 14.1 68.0 PM6:SFT8-4F PCE-10:BT-CIC:BEIT-4F [2]
1.32 1.65 15.0 1600 13.6 69.0 PTB7-Th:PCDTBT:IEICO-4F PBDB-T-2F:TfIF-4FIC [2]
1.32 1.74 19.6 1910 14.2 72.4 PBDB-TF:ITCC PBDB-TF:BTP-eC11 [2]
1.32 1.74 19.5 1912 14.2 72.0 PBDB-TF:ITCC PBDB-TF:BTP-eC11 [2]
1.36 1.73 18.7 1883 14.0 70.9 PM6:CH1007:PC71BM D18:F-ThBr [110]
1.37 1.73 15.2 1610 12.9 73.0 PM6:Y6 PV2000:PCBM [2]
1.38 1.80 20.3 2010 13.1 76.8 PBDB-TF:GS-ISO PBDM-TF:BTp-eC9 [111]
1.38 1.80 20.3 2010 13.1 76.8 PBDB-TF:GS-ISO PBDM-TF:BTp-eC9 [111]
1.42 1.79 15.0 1590 13.3 71.0 PCE-10:BTCIC DTDCPB:C70 [2]
1.48 1.74 14.1 1710 11.7 70.0 PTB7-Th:NOBDT PBDB-T: F-M [2]
OPV/a-Si
1.33 1.78 15.1 1610 13.2 71.0 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F a-Si [2]
Si/DSSC
1.11 1.84 14.7 580 40.9 62.0 Si N719 [2]
1.24 1.67 17.2 1360 18.1 69.3 Si SGT-021 [2]
CIGS/DSSC
1.21 1.82 13.0 1170 14.6 77.0 CIGS N719 [2]
1.22 1.90 12.4 1435 14.1 61.0 CIGS N719 [2]
1.22 1.82 15.1 1450 14.1 74.0 CIGS N719 [2]
DSSC/DSSC
1.40 1.98 11.4 1400 12.2 66.7 DX1 N719 [2]
1.44 1.95 10.4 1450 10.8 67 N719 Black dye [2]
1.67 1.98 12.3 1825 10.3 65 SGT-121/HC-A1 SGT-021/HC-A4 [112]
1.78 2.37 7.1 1420 7.2 69 N719 D131 [2]
Table 10. Monolithic multijunction research solar cells with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of the device bandgap ener-
gies (from EQE spectra) of the subcells among other established technologies.
Eg,bottom [eV] Eg,middle, Eg,top, [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Bottom absorber Middle, top absorber(s) Refs.
GaAs/GaInP
1.35 1.90 32.9 2500 15.4 85.7 GaAs GaInP [2]
1.41 1.88 32.8 2568 14.66 87.7 GaAs GaInP [2]
1.41 1.92 27.4 2400 13.1 88.0 GaAs GaInP [2]
1.42 1.85 31.6 2538 14.2 87.7 GaAs GaInP [2]
Si/GaAsP
1.17 1.90 23.4 1732 17.34 77.7 Si GaAsP [2]
nc-Si/a-Si
1.36 1.93 11.8 1428 12.27 67.5 nc-Si a-Si [2]
Triple-junction cells
0.92 1.33, 1.88 39.5 3000 15.4 85.3 InGaAs GaAs, InGaP [40]
0.98 1.41, 1.89 37.7 3014 14.6 86.0 InGaAs GaAs, InGaP [113]
1.13 1.48, 1.93 35.9 3248 13.1 84.3 Si GaInAsP, InGaP [114]
1.01 1.50, 1.92 28.1 2952 11.7 81.1 CIGS AlGaAs/GaInP [114]
1.30 1.27, 2.03 14.0 1922 9.9 73.4 nc-Si nc-Si, a-Si [115]
7.2. Best Performing Flexible Research Solar Cells Tables Table 12. Flexible organic single junction research solar cells with the
highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of photovoltaic
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
All the experimental data are summarized in Tables 11–16.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
Table 11. Flexible perovskite single junction research solar cells with the 1.27 7.4 708 15.9 65.2 PTB7-Th:COi 8DFIC:PC71BM [2]
highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of photovoltaic
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum). 1.32 10.6 690 24.3 63.2 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [2]
1.36 16.6 821 26.8 75.4 PM6:BTP-4Cl-12 [125]
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber perovskite Refs. 1.37 16.1 840 25.0 76.7 PM6:N3:PC71BM [2]
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
1.38 12.0 827 21.6 67.4 PM6:BTP-4Cl-12 [125]a)
1.41b) 5.2 462 17.8 63.7 FA0.8MA0.2SnBr0.2I2.8 [116] 1.38 17.5 835 27.4 76.7 PM6:BTP-eC9:PC71BM [42]
1.39 16.1 820 25.9 75.8 PBDB-T-2F:BTP-eC9:PC71BM [2]
1.44 8.5 650 20.8 62.9 FAGe0.1Sn0.9I3 [117]
1.39 15.9 864 25.0 73.5 D-18-Cl:G19:Y6 [126]
1.47b) 3.6 616 14.5 40.6 (5-AVA)y(MA)1-yPbI3 [2] 1.40 16.1 860 25.9 74.7 PM6:Y6 [2]
1.53 20.5 1070 23.6 81.2 FAMAPbI3 [117] 1.40 15.2 832 25.1 73.0 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [2]
1.40 17.1 830 27.4 74.9 PBDB-T-2F:BTP-eC9:PC71BM [127]
1.53 20.2 1123 24.7 72.9 FA0.87MA0.13PbClxI3-x [2]
1.41 15.2 830 25.0 73.3 PM6:Y6 [128]
1.54 22.4 1151 23.4 82.9 FAMAPbI3 [118] 1.41 15.1 847 24.9 71.6 PM6:Y6:C6 [2]
1.54 22.4 1170 24.6 77.8 Cs0.1FA0.9PbI3 [119] 1.42 16.6 860 25.9 74.7 PM6:Y6 [2]
1.44 10.4 848 17.0 72.2 PM6:Y6 [2]
1.56 21.7 1127 24.8 77.7 Cs0.05FA0.931MA0.019PbBr0.06I2.94/ [120]
1.55 12.0 840 19.5 73.3 PM6:IT-4F [2]
PM6:CH1007:PCBM
1.56 11.6 820 19.6 72.2 PBDB-T-2F:IT-4F [2]
1.56 20.8 1190 21.9 79.6 FA0.95MA0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 [2]
1.56 12.1 826 20.9 70.1 PBDB-T-2F:IT-4F [2]
1.56 20.3 1160 23.4 74.8 FA0.95MA0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 [2] 1.61 10.9 900 18.7 64.8 PBDB-T:ITIC [2]
1.63 9.2 770 16.0 74.7 PTB7-Th:PC71BM [2]
1.56 19.9 1109 23.2 77.3 Cs0.05 FA0.747MA0.153Rb0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 [2]a)
1.65 9.3 820 16.5 68.7 J51:ITIC [2]
1.56 19.9 1192 21.9 76.3 FA0.95MA0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 [2]a)
1.65 8.2 890 13.4 68.6 PBDB-T:ITIC [2]
1.57 19.5 1110 23.1 76.0 Cs0.03FA0.945MA0.025PbBr0.075I2.925 [2] 1.82 7.2 925 10.9 71.3 JP02 [2]
2.01 3.7 592 10.4 59.2 P3HT:PCBM [2]
1.58 19.2 1120 21.7 78.9 Cs0.08FA0.87MA0.05PbBr0.12I2.88 [2]
a)
Certified efficiency.
1.59 19.9 1120 23.0 77.5 FAMAPb(BrI)3 [2]
1.59 19.3 1090 22.7 78.1 MAPbI3–NH4Cl [2]

Table 13. Flexible dye sensitized single junction research solar cells with
1.59 20.2 1120 22.2 81.1 FAMAPbBrI [121] the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device
absorber bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
1.60 20.6 1110 23.0 80.7 CsFAMAPbBrI [122]
1.60 20.5 1140 23.5 76.5 Cs0.04FA0.86MA0.1PbBr0.29I2.71 [123] Eg [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Sensitizing dye Refs.
1.65 4.1 770 9.9 53.9 N719 [2]
1.60 17.8 1060 21.8 77.3 CsFAMAPbBrI [122]c)
1.74 4.6 750 10.5 58.0 N719 [2]
1.61 17.3 1062 21.7 74.9 Cs0.05FA0.81MA0.14PbBr0.45I2.55 [2]a) 1.75 7.6 732 15.0 69.2 N719 [2]a)
1.61 19.1 1135 21.2 79.2 Cs0.05FA0.75K0.04MA0.15Rb0.01PbBr0 [2] 1.78 7.5 725 15.4 67.5 N719 [2]
.51I2.49 1.79 6.5 729 13.2 68.0 N719 [2]

1.80 6.3 732 13.1 66.0 N719 [2]
1.62 20.1 1150 22.4 78.0 Cs0.04FA0.8064MA0.1536PbBr0.48I2.52 [2]
1.81 6.3 754 12.3 67.9 (JH-1)0.6(SQ2)0.4 [2]
1.62 18.0 1120 22.3 72.1 Cs0.06FA0.79MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.55 [2]
183 5.0 735 10.0 67.8 N719 [2]
1.63 14.9 1030 21.5 67.3 MAPbI3 [124] 1.88 6.0 750 11.2 71.0 N719 [2]
1.90 4.2 680 10.7 57.7 N719 [2]
1.63 10.4 1030 19.2 52.8 FA0.85MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.55 [2]
1.94 4.2 710 10.3 57.2 N719 [2]
1.65 11.2 940 18.4 64.9 MAPbI3 [2] 1.95 4.9 702 11.2 62.3 N719 [2]
1.65 7.9 1090 10.8 70.7 (α-FAPbI3)0.5(MAPbI2Br)0.5 [2] 2.02 3.9 720 11.9 45.2 N719 [129]
2.12 5.4 680 10.4 76.3 N719 [2]
a)Certifiedefficiency; b)Eg taken from absorption or photoluminescence spectra;
c)Exception included as a large-area highlight. a)Certified
efficiency.
Table 14. Flexible monolithic multijunction research solar cells with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of photovoltaic
bandgap energies (from EQE spectrum) of each subcell.
Eg,bottom [eV] Eg,top [eV] PCE [%] Voc [mV] Jsc [mA cm−2] FF [%] Bottom absorber material Top absorber material(s) Refs.
a) 30.2b) Ga0.51In0.49Pa)
1.00 1.41, 1.91 3043 16.1 84.5 Ga0.73In0.27As GaAs, [43]
1.25 1.78 24.7 2000 15.8 78.3 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 FA0.8Cs0.2PbI1.95Br1.05 [41]
1.25 1.78 24.4 2016 15.6 77.3 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 FA0.8Cs0.2PbI1.95Br1.05 [41]c)
1.26 1.79 23.8 2.1 15.1 75.1 FA0.6MA0.4Pb0.4Sn0.6I3 Cs0.12FA0.8MA0.08PbI1.8Br1.2 [130]
1.28 1.73 21.3 1820 15.6 75.0 FA0.75Cs0.25Sn0.5Pb0.5I3 FA0.6Cs0.3DMA0.1PbI2.4Br0.6 [2]
1.40 1.82 13.6 1800 11.1 68.3 PBDB-T:SN6IC-4F Cs0.1FA0.54MA0.36PbI1.8Br1.2 [2]
1.41 1.86 30.4 2547 14.3 84.7 GaAs InGaP [2]
1.41 1.92 27.4 2400 13.1 88.0 GaAs InGaP [2]
a)For triple junction devices the middle and top subcell values are listed; b)J–V measured under AM0 136.7 mW cm−2; c)Certified efficiency.
Table 15. Flexible single junction research solar cells with the highest 7.3. Best Performing Transparent and Semitransparent Research
efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device absorber Solar Cells Tables
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum) among emerging inorganic
technologies. Data on best performing transparent and semitransparent
research solar cells are given in Tables 17–22.
Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber material Refs.
[eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
1.04 4.4 394 23.9 46.4 Cu2CdxZn1–xSn(S,Se)4 [131]
7.4. Operational Stability Tables of Emerging Research Solar Cells
1.07 4.9 358 28.7 47.3 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [132] Tables 23–26 present the summary of the experimental data on
1.13 10.2 463 35.7 62.0 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [133] emerging research solar cells.
1.16 11.2 539 33.1 62.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]
1.32 6.13 415 25.5 57.9 Sb2Se3 [2]
Table 17. Transparent/semitransparent perovskite research solar cells
1.52 0.6 204 7.6 35.5 Cu2ZnSnS4 [2] with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of AVT
1.59 6.5 601 22.6 48.0 CZTSSe [134] and the photovoltaic bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber Refs.

[%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
Table 16. Flexible single junction research solar cells with the highest
efficiency: performance parameters as a function of device absorber 3 1.67 16.3 1099 18.9 78.3 Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr0.6I2.4 [138]
bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum) among established inorganic 3 1.64 15.7 1070 19.0 77.2 Cs0.175FA0.75MA0.075PbBr0.375I2.625 [2]
technologies.
3 1.53 12.2 1017 17.5 68.5 MAPbI3 [2]
Eg [eV] PCE Voc Jsc FF [%] Absorber material/ Refs. 4 1.63 18.2 1076 21.1 80.0 CsFAMAPb(BrI)3 [2]
[%] [mV] [mA cm−2] technology 5 1.60 19.1 1120 23.2 73.4 MAPbI3 [139]
1.11 11.5 526 33.8 64.6 CIGSSe [135] 5 1.60 16.5 1080 20.6 74.2 MAPbI3 [2]
1.14 17.0 656 36.6 70.8 Si [2] 5 1.61 12.0 960 19.2 65.3 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
1.17 18.9 608 39.5[135]
63.0 Si [2] 5 1.65 11.2 940 18.4 64.9 MAPbI3 [2]
1.17 12.0 580 35.8 58.4 CIGS [2] 6 1.60 15.8 1100 19.3 74.4 MAPbI3 [2]
1.20 20.4 736 35.1 78.9 CIGS [2]a) 7 1.55 13.6 988 20.4 67.5 MAPbI3 [2]
8 1.52 19.8 1137 21.9 79.5 Cs0.05FA0.95PbI3 [2]
1.22 18.7 720 35.0 74.4 CIGS [2]
9 1.63 17.8 1120 19.3 82.7 Cs0.13FA0.87PbBr0.39I2.61 [140]
1.32 8.4 550 24.3 63.0 Si [2]
9 1.64 17.4 1083 21.5 75.1 Cs0.175FA0.825PbBr0.375I2.625 [2]
1.42 22.1 980 27.1 83.4 GaAs [2]
10 1.59 17.5 1070 22.4 73.1 MAPbI3 [2]
1.45 13.5 786 22.1 77.7 GaAs [136]
10 1.65 16.1 1060 20.4 74.5 Cs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0.45I2.55 [2]
1.46 14.1 821 24.334 70.3 CdTe [137]a)
12 1.60 13.2 1000 19.5 67.8 MAPbI3 [2]
1.46 16.4 831 25.5 77.4 CdTe [2]
13 1.67 14.9 1100 19.8 68.4 MAPbBr0.5I2.5 [2]
1.49 11.5 821 22.0 63.9 CdTe [2] 13 1.88 13.2 1298 13.8 74.1 Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr1.5I1.5 [45]
1.79 8.8 888 14.3 70 a-Si:H [2] 14 1.64 13.6 1048 16.5 78.6 Cs0.175FA0.825PbBr0.375I2.875 [2]
1.88 8.2 820 15.6 64.0 a-Si:H [2] 14 1.57 13.0 970 19.1 69.9 MAPbI3-xClx [2]
a)Certified 15 1.64 11.4 1094 16.8 62.0 Cs0.05FA0.775MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 [141]

power conversion efficiency.
Table 17. Continued. Table 18. Transparent/semitransparent organic research solar cells with
the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function of AVT and
AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber Refs. the photovoltaic bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
[%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
15 1.61 11.9 1000 17.8 66.3 MAPbI3 [2] AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Active material Refs.
[%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
16 1.76 13.7 1120 16.7 73.4 MAPbBrI2 [2]
1 1.40 13.3 810 24.6 66.5 PM6:Y6 [2]
17 1.65 12.8 1040 16.6 74.1 Cs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0.45I2.55 [2]
2 1.66 7.6 770 15.6 63.3 PBDTTT-C-T:PC71BM [2]
18 1.77 12.2 1110 15.1 72.7 MAPbBrI2 [2]
3 1.40 12.6 800 24.5 64.5 PM6:Y6 [2]
18 1.53 9.1 1017 14.6 61.5 MAPbI3 [2]
6 1.47 12.0 870 19.6 70.4 PM7/PTTtID-Cl/IT-4F [2]
19 1.55 8.8 941 13.7 68.3 MAPbI3 [2]
8 1.41 12.7 852 21.1 70.4 D18-Cl:Y6:PC71BM [142]
20 1.63 11.7 1080 14.5 74.6 MAPbI3 + BiPy-I [2]
9 1.42 14.2 854 23.0 72.3 PM6:Y6 [2]
20 1.63 14.7 1108 17.6 75.2 KxCs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0. [2]
45I2.55 11 1.66 7.1 760 14.5 64.4 PBDTTT-C-T:PC71BM [2]
21 1.63 14.2 1117 17.4 73.2 KxCs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0. [2] 13 1.42 13.3 853 21.7 71.9 PM6:Y6 [2]
45I2.55
14 1.40 13.6 850 21.1 75.8 PM6:Y6 [2]
22 1.61 13.2 1073 17.2 71.7 KxCs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0. [2]
14 1.41 12.0 844 19.6 72.8 PM6:Y6:C6 [2]
45I2.55
15 1.52 8.9 772 18.3 63.0 PTB7-Th:FNIC1 [2]
23 1.61 12.3 1082 17.1 66.6 KxCs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0. [2]
45I2.55
16 1.95 2.9 540 9.7 55.4 P3HT-PCBM [2]
23 1.62 11.3 1040 15.1 72.3 MAPbI3 [2] 17 1.39 12.6 810 21.2 73.2 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [2]
23 1.57 10.8 970 17.3 64.4 MAPbClxI3-x [2] 18 1.39 11.7 810 20.7 69.6 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [2]
23 1.88 8.6 1236 10.0 69.9 Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr1.5I1.5 [45] 19 1.42 13.6 830 23.4 70.2 PM6:Y7 [143]
24 1.87 9.4 1120 13.6 61.6 MAPbBr1.5I1.5 [2] 19 1.42 12.4 852 20.4 71.4 PM6:Y6 [2]
25 1.55 10.8 950 16.3 69.7 MAPbI3 [2] 20 1.37 14.0 820 23.0 74.3 PM6:Y6:SN3 [144]
26 1.63 10.2 1070 12.2 78.1 MAPbI3 [2] 20 1.39 14.6 860 22.8 74.7 PM6/ICBA:Y6 [145]
27 1.60 12.1 1000 18.3 66.2 MAPbI3 [2] 20 1.42 12.3 817 20.6 73.0 PM6:Y6 [2]
28 1.60 8.5 964 13.1 66.8 MAPbClxI3-x [2] 20 1.23 11.6 661 25.6 68.2 BTB7-Th:ATT-9 [27]
28 1.57 8.1 1030 11.2 70.2 MAPbClxI3-x [2] 21 1.39 16.1 859 24.6 76.1 PM6-Ir1:BTP-eC9:PC71BM [146]
30 1.62 12.8 1030 16.5 74.9 MAPbClxI3-x [2] 21 1.41a) 13.8 820 25.3 66.5 PM6:N3 [2]
30 1.65 7.4 1010 11.8 62.2 Cs0.05FA0.8075MA0.1425PbBr0.45I2.55 [2] 25 1.34 11.0 750 20.9 70.0 PCE-10:A078 [2]
31 1.69 11.9 1050 16.3 69.4 MAPbBr0.5I2.5 [2] 25 1.40 10.2 736 20.3 68.3 PTB7-Th:FOIC [2]
33 1.55 7.3 1037 13.4 52.5 MAPbI3 [2] 25 1.43 12.1 760 23.9 66.6 PM6:Y6 [147]
34 1.62 11.7 990 15.9 74.6 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
26 1.40 12.9 825 21.6 72.4 PBDB-T-2F:Y6 [2]
35 1.88 12.0 1289 12.9 72.3 Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr1.5I1.5 [45]
28 1.39 11.3 816 19.7 70.3 PM6:Y6-BO [148]
36 1.79 10.3 1080 14.6 65.5 MAPbBr I2 [2]
28 1.41 a) 8.9 810 16.8 65.1 PM6:N3 [2]
37 1.62 10.8 1010 14.7 73.1 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
28 1.66 5.6 760 11.9 61.9 PBDTTT-C-T:PC71BM [2]
37 1.57 7.8 970 11.6 69.6 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
29 1.41a) 7.8 800 15.2 64. 7 PM6:N3 [2]
38 1.63 10.7 1060 13.0 77.6 MAPbI3 [2]
30 1.35 10.8 718 21.9 68.7 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [2]
41 1.90 8.8 1110 12.8 62.2 MAPbBr1.5I1.5 [2]
31 1.39 12.0 758 22.8 69.5 PCE10-BDT2F-0.8:Y6 [149]
42 1.63 10.3 1000 13.6 75.6 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
32 1.42 11.2 849 17.0 77.6 PM6:m-BTP-PhC6:BO-Cl [150]
45 1.64 8.5 960 12.6 73.5 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
34 1.40 9.1 733 18.5 67.1 PTB7-Th:FOIC [2]
46 1.57 3.6 1030 5.4 64.4 MAPbClxI3-x [2]
36 1.37 8.8 680 18.0 71.9 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [2]
47 1.63 4.5 880 8.2 63.0 MAPbI3 [2]
36 1.86 6.9 890 11.6 66.5 PSEHTT:ICBA [2]
52 1.88 4.1 1125 5.8 63.0 Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr1.5I1.5 [45]
37 1.86 6.1 890 10.2 66.8 PSEHTT:ICBA [2]
66 2.62 1.1 1000 2.1 52.9 Cs2AgBiBr6 [2]
38 1.33 5.7 700 12.4 66.23 PTB7-Th:IEICO-4F [2]
68 2.35 7.8 1550 6.7 72.0 FAPbBr2.43Cl0.57 [2]
72 2.62 1.5 960 2.1 74.3 Cs2AgBiBr6 [2] 39 1.41 13.0 849 19.0 80.3 PBDB-TF:L8-BO:BTP-eC9 [87]
72 3.03 0.2 1110 0.6 35.4 MAPbCl3 [2] 39 1.86 4.9 880 8.3 67.9 PSEHTT:ICBA [2]
73 2.62 1.6 970 2.2 73.1 Cs2AgBiBr6 [2] 25 1.43 9.7 770 20.0 63.0 PM6:Y6 [147]
73 2.84 0.5 1260 0.9 44.9 MAPbBr0.6Cl2.4 [2] 43 1.34 8.1 730 16.3 68.1 PCE-10:A078 [2]
74 2.62 1.5 970 2.2 71.1 Cs2AgBiBr6 [2] 44 1.37 8.0 680 16.2 72.6 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [2]
Table 18. Continued. Table 20. Semitransparent research solar cells with the highest effi-
ciency among emerging inorganic technologies: performance param-
eters as a function of AVT and the photovoltaic bandgap energy (from
AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Active material Refs. EQE spectrum).
[%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
46 1.34 10.8 750 20.4 70.6 PCE-10:A078 [2] AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber/technology Refs.
47 1.39 11.4 854 18.0 74.5 PM6:BTP-eC9:L8-BO [44] [%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
47 1.34 7.1 730 14.3 68.0 PCE-10:A078 [2] 1 1.46 3.0 475 14.6 42.8 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]
47 1.86 2.4 860 4.1 68.2 PSEHTT:ICBA [2] 8 1.83 3.4 679 12.1 42.0 Sb2S3 [2]
49 1.37 7.2 670 14.8 72.6 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [2]

50 1.38 8.3 746 16.7 66.8 PTB7-Th:FOIC:PC71BM [2]
Table 21. Semitransparent research solar cells with the highest efficiency
51 1.39 7.4 749 14.7 66.7 PTB7:FOIC:PC71BM [2] among established inorganic technologies: performance parameters
53 1.86 1.8 890 3.8 54.8 PSEHTT:ICBA [2] as a function of AVT and the photovoltaic bandgap energy (from EQE
spectrum).
53 1.32 5.7 750 10.6 69.5 DPP2T:IEICO-4F [2]
60 1.33 3.9 749 7.34 70.2 DPP2T:IEICO-4F [2] AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber/ Refs.
62 1.33 5.9 690 12.9 66.0 PTB7-Th:6TIC-4F [2] [%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%] technology
a)E
2 1.23 10.0 640 23.3 66.9 CIGS [2]
g taken from absorbance.
5 1.26 9.8 630 22.9 67.6 CIGS [2]
Table 19. Semitransparent/transparent dye sensitized research solar 7 1.92 6.6 881 11.8 63.7 a-Si:H [2]
cells with the highest efficiency: performance parameters as a function
9 1.30 9.8 630 20.9 74.1 CIGS [2]
of AVT and the photovoltaic bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
9 1.28 6.5 597 22.9 46.5 CIGS [2]
AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Sensitizing dye Refs. 11 1.34 8.4 620 20.4 66.3 CIGS [2]
[%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
16 1.83 7.5 810 14.2 65.3 a-Si:H [2]
1 2.00 5.2 780 12.4 53.7 N719 [2]
5 1.80 11.0 871 16.8 75.2 C268 + Y1 [151] 17 1.83 7.7 810 14.1 67.3 a-Si:H [2]
9 2.00 4.5 780 10.3 56.0 N719 [2] 18 2.05 5.9 720 14.1 58.3 a-SiGe:H [2]
9 1.82 4.3 720 9.9 60.0 N719 + SDA [2] 18 1.50 5.9 710 14.6 57.4 CIGS [2]
10 2.01 5.2 770 11.9 57.0 N719 [2] 19 1.87 7.3 820 13.1 67.6 a-Si:H [2]
10 2.00 4.9 765 11.4 56.1 N719 [2] 19 1.30 6.9 640 16.6 64.7 CIGS [2]
10 1.81 5.0 710 11.7 60.7 N719 [98]
19 1.34 6.5 580 17.5 63.5 CIGS [2]
13 1.68 10.1 851 14.9 80.2 SGT-021 [2]a)
20 1.64 1.7 495 8.9 40.8 CIGS [2]
14 1.68 9.9 850 14.9 78.5 SGT-021 [2]a)
22 2.05 5.5 760 12.3 58.6 a-Si:H [2]
15 1.68 9.6 850 14.7 77.2 SGT-021 [2]a)
17 1.68 9.8 855 15.1 75.5 SGT-021 [2]a) 23 1.92 6.0 830 10.6 68.2 a-Si:H [2]
18 2.00 8.6 750 16.7 68.4 N719 (EtOH) [2] 24 1.68a) 6.9 920 10.7 70.3 a-Si:H [2]
23 1.82 4.2 650 9.9 64.0 N719 + SDA [2] 37 1.54 0.4 101 14.7 27.2 CdTe [2]
23 2.01 3.6 650 8.2 68.0 N719 [2] 45 2.16 1.1 596 3.9 47.3 a-Si:H [2]
24 2.00 7.8 794 17.4 56.3 N719 (EtOH) [2]
a)E
g taken from absorption spectrum.
25 1.82 2.6 650 5.6 71.0 N719 + SDA [2]
27 1.77 3.7 521 10.7 65.8 NPI [2]
30 2.19 1.5 640 3.3 70.0 N719 [2] Table 22. Transparent photovoltaic devices with the highest efficiency
including research solar cells with transparent luminescent solar con-
31 2.23 6.4 698 13.5 67.9 TPA-1 (EtOH) [2]
centrators: performance parameters (measured under the standard of
33 2.30 6.1 711 12.5 68.3 TPA-2 (EtOH) [2] Yang et al.)[46,47] as a function of the average visible transmittance and
36 2.23 6.1 766 14.5 54.7 TPA-1 (EtOH) [2] bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
37 2.46 3.5 648 8.0 67.5 Cz-2 [2]
AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Luminophore(s)/absorber Refs.
38 2.31 5.7 769 13.6 54.2 TPA-2 (EtOH) [2]
[%] [eV] [%] [mV] [mA cm−2] [%]
43 1.95 7.8 720 15.3 70.8 PdTPBP/BPEA [2]b)
74 1.50 1.2 990 1.5 81.3 COi8DFIC/GaAs [153]
69 1.39 3.1 422 11.2 65.6 VG20-C16 [2]
75 1.64 3.0 1020 3.8 77.7 Cs2Mo6I8(CF3CF2COO)6: [48]
75 1.53 2.5 408 10.9 56.2 TB207 [152]
BODIPY/GaAs
76 1.41 2.3 406 8.6 65.9 VG20-C16 [2]
84 1.11 0.4 520 1.3 65.1 (TBA)2Mo6Cl14/Si [154]
a)Selective absorption-like EQE spectrum; b)E calculated from transmittance
g 86 1.52 0.4 500 1.2 66.7 Cy7-NHS/Si [155]
spectrum.
Table 23. Most operationally stable perovskite research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated 1 sun
illumination as a function of the device bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] 0 h PCE 200 h PCE 1000 h PCE E200h E1000h Absorber Comments Refs.
[%] [%] [%] [Wh cm−2] [Wh cm−2]
1.40 9.4 9.4 9.2 1.9 9.3 FASnI3+NaBH4+DipI MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 70 °C [49,156]
1.45 13.8 14.1 13.0 2.8 13.6 FASnI3 MPP, AM1.5G, air [53]
1.53 23.5 20.9 – 4.3 – α-FAPbI3 MPP, w-LED, N2, 35 °C [2]
1.53 23.1 22.7 20.7 4.6 22.0 FA0.97MA0.03PbI2.91Br0.09 MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 40 °C [55]
1.54 23.02 20.9 19.4 4.3 20.4 FAPbI3/FGCs MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 60 °C [2]
1.57 21.8 22.0 21.8 4.2 22.0 Cs0.05FA0.874MA0.076PbBr0.24I2.76 MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 40 °C, UV-f [2]
1.57 20.6 20.2 20.2 4.1 20.1 FAxCs1–xPbI3 MPP, w-LED, Ar, 55–60 °C [2]
1.57 19.8 20.6 17.7 4.1 19.1 FA0.95MA0.05PbBr0.15I2.85 MPP, w-LED, air, 55 °C [60]
1.58 23.1 22.9 – 4.6 – Cs0.05FA0.9MA0.05 Pb Br0.26I2.74 MPP, N2 [19]
1.58 23.6 20.2 – 4.4 – FA0.92MA0.08PbBr0.24I2.76 MPP, AM1.5G, air, 50% RH [157]
1.58 19.2 19.3 18.4 3.9 19.0 Cs0.05FA0.7885MA0.1615PbBr0.3I2.7 OC, AM1.5G, encapsulation, 70–75 °C [2]
1.59 17.1 11.6 9.5 2.8 11.1 Gua0.15MA0.85PbI3 MPP, AM1.5G, Ar, 60 °C [2]
1.60 21.8 21.4 19.8 4.3 20.9 CsMAFAPbI3:PPP MPP, encapsulation, air, AM1.5G, 75 °C [2]
1.60 21.3 21.1 21.3 4.2 21.2 CsFAMAPbI3:PPP MPP, encapsulation, air, AM1.5G, 45 °C [2]
1.60 19.6 19.6 18.8 3.9 19.4 Cs0.05FA0.81MA0.14PbBr0.45I2.55 MPP-RL, AM1.5G, encapsulation, 50–70% RH, 65 °C [2]
1.60 19.6 18.4 16.3 3.8 17.4 CsFAMAPbBrI MPP, AM1.5G, air, 40% RH, 30 °C [122]
1.61 18.1 11.9 13.6 2.6 13.0 Gua0.25MA0.75PbI3 MPP, AM1.5G, Ar, 60 °C [2]
1.62 21.1 19.9 18.0 4.0 19.1 Cs0.04FA0.8064MA0.1536PbBr0.48I2.52 MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 40 °C [2]
1.63 20.0 16.8 11.8a) 3.5 15.1 Cs0.05FA0.79MA0.16PbBr0.51I2.49 MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 25 °C [2]
a)
1.63 21.0 19.7 19.4 3.9 19.6 Cs0.05FA0.81MA0.14PbBr0.45I2.55/ MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 60 °C [2]
FGCs
1.64 20.1 17.8 – 3.7 – Cs0.1 FA0.747MA0.153PbBr0.51I2.49 MPP, w-LED, N2, 25 °C [2]
1.64b) 19.7 17.2 – 3.5 – Cs0.5FA0.7885MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 MPP, w-LED, N2, 20 °C [2]
1.66 13.0 14.7 13.0 2.8 14.1 Cs0.17FA0.83PbBr0.51I2.49 MPP, AM1.5G, 40% RH, 35 °C [2]
1.69 6.8 6.7 – 1.3 – CsGe0.5Sn0.5I3 MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 45 °C [2]
1.74 12.9 13.4 – 2.7 – CsPbI3 OC, AM1.5G, N2, 25 °C, UV-f [2]
a)
Extrapolated value; b)Eg taken from PL peak; abbreviations: MPP, maximum power point (tracking during test); OC, open-circuit (condition during test); UV-f, ultraviolet
light filter; w-LED, white light spectrum light emitting diode source; RH, relative humidity; MPP-RL, the cell is connected to the load resistance which matches the initial
maximum power point.
Table 24. Most operationally stable organic research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated 1 sun
illumination as a function of the device bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] 0 h PCE [%] 200 h PCE [%] 1000 h PCE [%] E200h [Wh cm−2] E1000h [Wh cm−2] Active material Comments Refs.
1.56 7.8 7.2 6.8 1.5 7.0 PBDB-T:ITIC-2F OC, w-LED, N2, 40 °C, UV-f [2]
1.57 5.0 5.0 4.7 1.0 4.8 P3HT:o-IDTBR OC, AM1.5G, N2, UV-f [2]
1.61 5.1 4.9 4.9 1.1 4.9 Dyad 4 OC, w-LED, N2, 30 °C [2]
1.66 8.0 7.4 7.0 1.5 7.3 PBDB-T:ITIC-Th OC, w-LED, N2, 40 °C, UV-f [2]
1.70 8.7 8.1 - 1.6 - PBDB-T:IDTBR OC, AM1.5G, N2, 35—40 °C [2]
1.84 5.9 5.6 5.4 1.1 5.6 PBDB-T:PCBM OC, w-LED, N2, 40 °C, UV-f [2]
1.94 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.7 3.7 P3HT-PCBM OC, AM1.5G, air [2]
Abbreviations: OC, open-circuit (condition during test); UV-f, ultraviolet light filter; w-LED, white light spectrum light emitting diode source.
Table 25. Most operationally stable dye-sensitized research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated 1
sun illumination as a function of the device bandgap energy (from EQE spectrum).
Eg [eV] 0 h PCE [%] 200 h PCE [%] 1000 h PCE [%] E200h [Wh cm−2] E1000h [Wh cm−2] Sensitizing dye Comments Refs.
1.59 9.0 9.0 8.2 1.8 8.7 TF-tBu_C3F7 OC, AM1.5G, 65 °C [2]
1.75 6.5 6.7 6.3 1.4 6.6 N719 OC, AM1.5G, 35 °C, UV-f [2]
1.77 6.3 5.8 4.8 1.3 5.5 Z907 OC, w-LED, 20 °C [2]
1.78 9.3 9.9 7.9 1.9 9.2 N719 OC, AM1.5G, 50 °C [2]
1.83 8.4 8.3 – 1.7 – MK2 OC, w-LED [2]
1.85 8.0 8.3 8.3 1.4 8.1 N719 OC, AM1.5G [2]
2.07 5.8 6.5 5.9 1.3 6.2 D35 OC, AM1.5G, 60 °C [2]
Abbreviations: OC, open-circuit (condition during test); UV-f, ultraviolet light filter; w-LED, white light spectrum light emitting diode source.
Table 26. Most operationally stable multijunction research solar cells in terms of the stability test energy yield for 200 and 1000 h under simulated/
equivalent 1 sun illumination as a function of the device bandgap energies (from EQE spectra) of the absorber materials.
Bottom Eg Top Eg 0 h PCE 200 h PCE 1000 h PCE E200h E1000h Bottom absorber material Top absorber material Comments Refs.
[eV] [eV] [%] [%] [%] [Wh cm−2] [Wh cm−2]
Perovskite/perovskite
1.25 1.80 25.6 26.4 17.8 5.2 23.5 FA0.8Cs0.2Pb(I0.62Br0.38)3 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 MPP, AM1.5G, [36]
air 30–50% RH, 35 °C
1.26 1.82 24.4 24.3 19.3a) 4.9 21.8a) FSA:MA0.3FA0.7Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 FA0.8Cs0.2Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 MPP, encapsulation, [2]
air, 30–50% RH, AM1.5G,
no UV-f, 54–60 °C
1.26 1.82 21.2 20.6 19.8 4.2 20.7 Cs0.05MA0.45FA0.5Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.4FA0.6PbI1.95Br1.05 MPP-RL, encapsulation, [2]
air, AM1.5G, room
temperature
1.27 1.72 23.1 22.2 20.4 4.7 21.4 (FASnI3)0.6(MAPbI3)0.4 Cs0.05FA0.8MA0.15PbI2.55Br0.45 MPP, AM1.5G [2]
GaAs/perovskite
1.42 1.85 24.1 23.9 22.1a) 4.76 23.3a) GaAs FA0.80MA0.04Cs0.16Pb(I0.50B MPP, air 20–25% RH, [2]
r0.50)3 AM1.5G, room T, UV-f
CIGS/perovskite
1.10 1.65 22.0 19.9 18.4a) 4.1 19.4a) CIGS Cs0.09FA0.77MA0.14Pb(I0.86B MPP, air 20% RH, [2]
r0.14)3 30 °C
a)Extrapolated value; abbreviations: MPP, maximum power point (tracking during test); UV-f, ultraviolet light filter; RH, relative humidity; MPP-R , the cell is connected to
L
the load resistance which matches the initial maximum power point.
Supporting Information Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office, Agreement No. 38262.
J.N. acknowledges the support of the European Research Council
Supporting Information is available from the Wiley Online Library or (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and
from the author. Innovation Programme (Grant Agreement No. 742708). The authors
also acknowledge Christian Berger for his work as software developer of
the emerging-pv.org website and database, and all the contributions to
Acknowledgements the data updating, particularly the effort by Simon Arnold, Robin Basu,
Lirond Dong, José García-Cerrillo, Chao Liu, Shudi Qiu, Zijian Peng,
O.A. acknowledges the financial support from Ministerio de Ciencia Marc Steinberger, Jingjing Tian, Rong Wang, and Kaicheng Zhang.
e Innovación of Spain, Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) and Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
EU (FEDER) under Grant No. PCI2019-111839-2 (SCALEUP). C.J.B.
gratefully acknowledges the financial support through the “Aufbruch
Bayern” initiative of the state of Bavaria (EnCN and SFF), the Bavarian
Initiative “Solar Technologies go Hybrid” (SolTech), the DFG – SFB953
(Project No. 182849149), and the DFG – INST 90/917-1 FUGG. R.R.L.
Conflict of Interest
gratefully acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation R.R.L. is a co-founder, director, and a part owner of Ubiquitous Energy,
under Grant No. CBET-1702591. N.K. acknowledges funding by the Inc., a company working to commercialize transparent photovoltaic
US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable technologies. All other authors declare no competing financial interest.
Keywords [21] Z. Li, B. Li, X. Wu, S. A. Sheppard, S. Zhang, D. Gao, N. J. Long,

Z. Zhu, Science 2022, 376, 416.
bandgap energy, emerging photovoltaics, flexible photovoltaics, [22] Q. Jiang, J. Tong, Y. Xian, R. A. Kerner, S. P. Dunfield, C. Xiao,
photovoltaic device operational stability, semitransparent solar cells, R. A. Scheidt, D. Kuciauskas, X. Wang, M. P. Hautzinger,
tandem solar cells, transparent solar cells R. Tirawat, M. C. Beard, D. P. Fenning, J. J. Berry, B. W. Larson,
Y. Yan, K. Zhu, Nature 2022, 611, 278.
Received: September 30, 2022 [23] Y. Lei, Y. Li, C. Lu, Q. Yan, Y. Wu, F. Babbe, H. Gong, S. Zhang,
Revised: November 7, 2022 J. Zhou, R. Wang, R. Zhang, Y. Chen, H. Tsai, Y. Gu, H. Hu,
Published online: December 9, 2022 Y.-H. Lo, W. Nie, T. Lee, J. Luo, K. Yang, K.-I. Jang, S. Xu, Nature
2022, 608, 317.
[24] X. Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Yu, D. Wang, C. Liu, S. Chen, Y. Li, Y. Li,
M. Zhang, Y. Peng, Y. Tian, J. Huang, X. Wang, X. Guo, B. Xu, Adv.
[1] O. Almora, D. Baran, G. C. Bazan, C. Berger, C. I. Cabrera, Mater. 2022, 34, 2205809.
K. R. Catchpole, S. Erten-Ela, F. Guo, J. Hauch, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, [25] L. Zhu, M. Zhang, J. Xu, C. Li, J. Yan, G. Zhou, W. Zhong,
T. J. Jacobsson, R. A. J. Janssen, T. Kirchartz, Y. Li, M. A. Loi, T. Hao, J. Song, X. Xue, Z. Zhou, R. Zeng, H. Zhu, C.-C. Chen,
R. R. Lunt, X. Mathew, M. D. McGehee, J. Min, D. B. Mitzi, R. C. I. MacKenzie, Y. Zou, J. Nelson, Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, F. Liu, Nat.
M. K. Nazeeruddin, J. Nelson, A. F. Nogueira, U. W. Paetzold, Mater. 2022, 21, 656.
N.-G. Park, B. P. Rand, U. Rau, H. J. Snaith, E. Unger, L. Vaillant- [26] Y. Wei, Z. Chen, G. Lu, N. Yu, C. Li, J. Gao, X. Gu, X. Hao, G. Lu,
Roca, et al., Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2002774. Z. Tang, J. Zhang, Z. Wei, X. Zhang, H. Huang, Adv. Mater. 2022,
[2] O. Almora, D. Baran, G. C. Bazan, C. Berger, C. I. Cabrera, 34, 2204718.
K. R. Catchpole, S. Erten-Ela, F. Guo, J. Hauch, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, [27] W. Liu, S. Sun, S. Xu, H. Zhang, Y. Zheng, Z. Wei, X. Zhu, Adv.
T. J. Jacobsson, R. A. J. Janssen, T. Kirchartz, N. Kopidakis, Mater. 2022, 34, 2200337.
Y. Li, M. A. Loi, R. R. Lunt, X. Mathew, M. D. McGehee, J. Min, [28] J. Wang, J. Zhou, X. Xu, F. Meng, C. Xiang, L. Lou, K. Yin, B. Duan,
D. B. Mitzi, M. K. Nazeeruddin, J. Nelson, A. F. Nogueira, H. Wu, J. Shi, Y. Luo, D. Li, H. Xin, Q. Meng, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34,
U. W. Paetzold, N.-G. Park, B. P. Rand, U. Rau, H. J. Snaith, 2202858.
E. Unger, et al., Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2102526. [29] Y. C. Choi, D. U. Lee, J. H. Noh, E. K. Kim, S. I. Seok, Adv. Funct.
[3] M. A. Green, E. D. Dunlop, J. Hohl-Ebinger, M. Yoshita, Mater. 2014, 24, 3587.
N. Kopidakis, K. Bothe, D. Hinken, M. Rauer, X. Hao, Prog. Photo- [30] X. Wang, R. Tang, C. Jiang, W. Lian, H. Ju, G. Jiang, Z. Li, C. Zhu,
voltaics 2022, 30, 687. T. Chen, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 2002341.
[4] W. Shockley, H. J. Queisser, J. Appl. Phys. 1961, 32, 510. [31] R. Tang, X. Wang, W. Lian, J. Huang, Q. Wei, M. Huang, Y. Yin,
[5] A. S. Brown, M. A. Green, in Conf. Record of the Twenty-Ninth IEEE C. Jiang, S. Yang, G. Xing, S. Chen, C. Zhu, X. Hao, M. A. Green,
Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA 2002, T. Chen, Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 587.
pp. 868–871, https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2002.1190717. [32] Y. Wang, S. R. Kavanagh, I. Burgués-Ceballos, A. Walsh,
[6] A. S. Brown, M. A. Green, Phys. Educ. 2002, 14, 96. D. O. Scanlon, G. Konstantatos, Nat. Photonics 2022, 16, 235.
[7] O. Almora, C. I. Cabrera, J. Garcia-Cerrillo, T. Kirchartz, U. Rau, [33] NREL's Best Research-Cell Efficiency Chart, https://www.nrel.gov/
C. J. Brabec, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2100022. pv/cell-efficiency.html (accessed: May 2020).
[8] L. Krückemeier, U. Rau, M. Stolterfoht, T. Kirchartz, Adv. Energy [34] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog.
Mater. 2020, 10, 1902573. Photovoltaics 2012, 20, 12.
[9] A. S. Brown, M. A. Green, Phys. E 2002, 14, 96. [35] M. A. Ruiz-Preciado, F. Gota, P. Fassl, I. M. Hossain, R. Singh,
[10] J.-F. Guillemoles, T. Kirchartz, D. Cahen, U. Rau, Nat. Photonics F. Laufer, F. Schackmar, T. Feeney, A. Farag, I. Allegro, H. Hu,
2019, 13, 501. S. Gharibzadeh, B. A. Nejand, V. S. Gevaerts, M. Simor, P. J. Bolt,
[11] C. Yang, D. Liu, M. Bates, M. C. Barr, R. R. Lunt, Joule 2019, 3, 1803. U. W. Paetzold, ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 2273.
[12] C. J. Traverse, R. Pandey, M. C. Barr, R. R. Lunt, Nat. Energy 2017, [36] R. Lin, J. Xu, M. Wei, Y. Wang, Z. Qin, Z. Liu, J. Wu, K. Xiao,
2, 849. B. Chen, S. M. Park, G. Chen, H. R. Atapattu, K. R. Graham, J. Xu,
[13] S. Rühle, Sol. Energy 2016, 130, 139. J. Zhu, L. Li, C. Zhang, E. H. Sargent, H. Tan, Nature 2022, 603, 73.
[14] Y. Ren, D. Zhang, J. Suo, Y. Cao, F. T. Eickemeyer, N. Vlachopoulos, [37] L. Mao, T. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Shi, Y. Hu, P. Zeng, F. Li, J. Gong,
S. M. Zakeeruddin, A. Hagfeldt, M. Grätzel, Nature 2022, https:// X. Fang, Y. Sun, X. Liu, J. Du, A. Han, L. Zhang, W. Liu, F. Meng,
doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05460-z. X. Cui, Z. Liu, M. Liu, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2206193.
[15] Y. Zhao, S. Wang, C. Jiang, C. Li, P. Xiao, R. Tang, J. Gong, G. Chen, [38] J. Zheng, G. Wang, W. Duan, M. A. Mahmud, H. Yi, C. Xu,
T. Chen, J. Li, X. Xiao, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2103015. A. Lambertz, S. Bremner, K. Ding, S. Huang, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie,
[16] Z. Sun, M. Liu, Y. Zhou, Q. Wang, Y. Yang, Y. Zhou, F. Liu, ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 3003.
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2022, 235, 111453. [39] K. Xiao, J. Wen, Q. Han, R. Lin, Y. Gao, S. Gu, Y. Zang, Y. Nie,
[17] M. Kim, J. Jeong, H. Lu, K. Lee Tae, T. Eickemeyer Felix, Y. Liu, J. Zhu, J. Xu, H. Tan, ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 2819.
W. Choi In, J. Choi Seung, Y. Jo, H.-B. Kim, S.-I. Mo, Y.-K. Kim, [40] R. M. France, J. F. Geisz, T. Song, W. Olavarria, M. Young,
H. Lee, G. An Na, S. Cho, R. Tress Wolfgang, M. Zakeeruddin A. Kibbler, M. A. Steiner, Joule 2022, 6, 1121.
Shaik, A. Hagfeldt, Y. Kim Jin, M. Grätzel, S. Kim Dong, Science [41] L. Li, Y. Wang, X. Wang, R. Lin, X. Luo, Z. Liu, K. Zhou, S. Xiong,
2022, 375, 302. Q. Bao, G. Chen, Y. Tian, Y. Deng, K. Xiao, J. Wu, M. I. Saidaminov,
[18] D. Grabowski, Z. Liu, G. Schöpe, U. Rau, T. Kirchartz, Sol. RRL H. Lin, C.-Q. Ma, Z. Zhao, Y. Wu, L. Zhang, H. Tan, Nat. Energy
2022, 6, 2200507. 2022, 7, 708.
[19] J. Peng, F. Kremer, D. Walter, Y. Wu, Y. Ji, J. Xiang, W. Liu, T. Duong, [42] G. Zeng, W. Chen, X. Chen, Y. Hu, Y. Chen, B. Zhang, H. Chen,
H. Shen, T. Lu, F. Brink, D. Zhong, L. Li, O. Lee Cheong Lem, W. Sun, Y. Shen, Y. Li, F. Yan, Y. Li, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144,
Y. Liu, K. J. Weber, T. P. White, K. R. Catchpole, Nature 2022, 601, 573. 8658.
[20] M. A. Mahmud, J. Zheng, S. Tang, G. Wang, J. Bing, A. D. Bui, [43] J. Schön, G. M. M. W. Bissels, P. Mulder, R. H. van Leest,
J. Qu, L. Yang, C. Liao, H. Chen, S. P. Bremner, H. T. Nguyen, N. Gruginskie, E. Vlieg, D. Chojniak, D. Lackner, Prog. Photovol-
J. Cairney, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2201672. taics 2022, 30, 1003.
[44] X. Liu, Z. Zhong, R. Zhu, J. Yu, G. Li, Joule 2022, 6, 1918. [68] S. Qin, C. Lu, Z. Jia, Y. Wang, S. Li, W. Lai, P. Shi, R. Wang, C. Zhu,
[45] J. C. Yu, B. Li, C. J. Dunn, J. Yan, B. T. Diroll, A. S. R. Chesman, J. Du, J. Zhang, L. Meng, Y. Li, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2108829.
J. J. Jasieniak, Adv. Sci. 2022, 9, 2201487. [69] Z. Guo, A. K. Jena, I. Takei, M. Ikegami, A. Ishii, Y. Numata,
[46] C. Yang, D. Liu, R. R. Lunt, Joule 2019, 3, 2871. N. Shibayama, T. Miyasaka, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2103614.
[47] C. Yang, H. A. Atwater, M. A. Baldo, D. Baran, C. J. Barile, [70] W. Chen, D. Li, X. Chen, H. Chen, S. Liu, H. Yang, X. Li, Y. Shen,
M. C. Barr, M. Bates, M. G. Bawendi, M. R. Bergren, B. Borhan, X. Ou, Y. Yang, L. Jiang, Y. Li, Y. Li, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32,
C. J. Brabec, S. Brovelli, V. Bulović, P. Ceroni, M. G. Debije, 2109321.
J.-M. Delgado-Sanchez, W.-J. Dong, P. M. Duxbury, R. C. Evans, [71] H. Xu, Z. Liang, J. Ye, S. Xu, Z. Wang, L. Zhu, X. Chen, Z. Xiao,
S. R. Forrest, D. R. Gamelin, N. C. Giebink, X. Gong, G. Griffini, X. Pan, G. Liu, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 437, 135181.
F. Guo, C. K. Herrera, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, R. J. Holmes, S.-K. Hong, [72] X. Li, Y. Tan, H. Lai, S. Li, Y. Chen, S. Li, P. Xu, J. Yang, ACS Appl.
T. Kirchartz, et al., Joule 2022, 6, 8. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 29746.
[48] C. Yang, W. Sheng, M. Moemeni, M. Bates, C. K. Herrera, [73] H. Zhu, L. Pan, F. T. Eickemeyer, M. A. Hope, O. Ouellette,
B. Borhan, R. R. Lunt, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003581. A. Q. M. Alanazi, J. Gao, T. P. Baumeler, X. Li, S. Wang,
[49] J. Sanchez-Diaz, R. S. Sánchez, S. Masi, M. Kreĉmarová, S. M. Zakeeruddin, Y. Liu, L. Emsley, M. Grätzel, ACS Energy Lett.
A. O. Alvarez, E. M. Barea, J. Rodriguez-Romero, V. S. Chirvony, 2022, 7, 1112.
J. F. Sánchez-Royo, J. P. Martinez-Pastor, I. Mora-Seró, Joule 2022, [74] X. Yao, B. He, J. Zhu, J. Ti, L. Cui, R. Tui, M. Wei, H. Chen, J. Duan,
6, 861. Y. Duan, Q. Tang, Nano Energy 2022, 96, 107138.
[50] G. Kapil, T. Bessho, Y. Sanehira, S. R. Sahamir, M. Chen, [75] J. Zhu, Y. Liu, B. He, W. Zhang, L. Cui, S. Wang, H. Chen, Y. Duan,
A. K. Baranwal, D. Liu, Y. Sono, D. Hirotani, D. Nomura, Q. Tang, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 428, 131950.
K. Nishimura, M. A. Kamarudin, Q. Shen, H. Segawa, S. Hayase, [76] H. Yuan, Y. Zhao, J. Duan, Y. Wang, X. Yang, Q. Tang, J. Mater.
ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 966. Chem. A 2018, 6, 24324.
[51] Z. Zhu, X. Jiang, D. Yu, N. Yu, Z. Ning, Q. Mi, ACS Energy Lett. [77] B. Li, X. Wu, S. Zhang, Z. Li, D. Gao, X. Chen, S. Xiao, C.-C. Chueh,
2022, 7, 2079. A. K. Y. Jen, Z. Zhu, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 446, 137144.
[52] Y. Su, J. Yang, G. Liu, W. Sheng, J. Zhang, Y. Zhong, L. Tan, Y. Chen, [78] Z. Liu, H.-E. Wang, Sustainable Energy Fuels 2022, 6, 744.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2109631. [79] Z. Liu, N. Wang, Sol. Energy 2021, 214, 110.
[53] T. Wu, X. Liu, X. Luo, H. Segawa, G. Tong, Y. Zhang, L. K. Ono, [80] Y. Pan, X. Zheng, J. Guo, Z. Chen, S. Li, C. He, S. Ye, X. Xia,
Y. Qi, L. Han, Nano-Micro Lett. 2022, 14, 99. S. Wang, X. Lu, H. Zhu, J. Min, L. Zuo, M. Shi, H. Chen, Adv.
[54] Z. Xiong, X. Chen, B. Zhang, G. O. Odunmbaku, Z. Ou, B. Guo, Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2108614.
K. Yang, Z. Kan, S. Lu, S. Chen, N. A. N. Ouedraogo, Y. Cho, [81] L. Zhan, S. Li, Y. Li, R. Sun, J. Min, Z. Bi, W. Ma, Z. Chen, G. Zhou,
C. Yang, J. Chen, K. Sun, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2106118. H. Zhu, M. Shi, L. Zuo, H. Chen, Joule 2022, 6, 662.
[55] F. Zhang, Y. Park So, C. Yao, H. Lu, P. Dunfield Sean, C. Xiao, [82] Y. Cai, Y. Li, R. Wang, H. Wu, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, Z. Ma, X. Hao,
S. Uličná, X. Zhao, L. Du Hill, X. Chen, X. Wang, E. Mundt Laura, Y. Zhao, C. Zhang, F. Huang, Y. Sun, Adv. Mater. 2021, 33,
H. Stone Kevin, T. Schelhas Laura, G. Teeter, S. Parkin, L. Ratcliff 2101733.
Erin, Y.-L. Loo, J. Berry Joseph, C. Beard Matthew, Y. Yan, W. Larson [83] D. Wang, G. Zhou, Y. Li, K. Yan, L. Zhan, H. Zhu, X. Lu, H. Chen,
Bryon, K. Zhu, Science 2022, 375, 71. C.-Z. Li, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2107827.
[56] Y. Zhao, F. Ma, Z. Qu, S. Yu, T. Shen, H.-X. Deng, X. Chu, X. Peng, [84] T. Zhang, C. An, Y. Cui, J. Zhang, P. Bi, C. Yang, S. Zhang, J. Hou,
Y. Yuan, X. Zhang, J. You, Science 2022, 377, 531. Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2105803.
[57] Y. Li, Z. Chen, B. Yu, S. Tan, Y. Cui, H. Wu, Y. Luo, J. Shi, D. Li, [85] L. Zuo, S. B. Jo, Y. Li, Y. Meng, R. J. Stoddard, Y. Liu, F. Lin, X. Shi,
Q. Meng, Joule 2022, 6, 676. F. Liu, H. W. Hillhouse, D. S. Ginger, H. Chen, A. K. Y. Jen, Nat.
[58] S. Tan, T. Huang, I. Yavuz, R. Wang, T. W. Yoon, M. Xu, Q. Xing, Nanotechnol. 2022, 17, 53.
K. Park, D.-K. Lee, C.-H. Chen, R. Zheng, T. Yoon, Y. Zhao, [86] X. Duan, W. Song, J. Qiao, X. Li, Y. Cai, H. Wu, J. Zhang, X. Hao,
H.-C. Wang, D. Meng, J. Xue, Y. J. Song, X. Pan, N.-G. Park, Z. Tang, Z. Ge, F. Huang, Y. Sun, Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15,
J.-W. Lee, Y. Yang, Nature 2022, 605, 268. 1563.
[59] Z. Shen, Q. Han, X. Luo, Y. Shen, T. Wang, C. Zhang, Y. Wang, [87] S. Guan, Y. Li, K. Yan, W. Fu, L. Zuo, H. Chen, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34,
H. Chen, X. Yang, Y. Zhang, L. Han, Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 1078. 2205844.
[60] X. Li, W. Zhang, X. Guo, C. Lu, J. Wei, J. Fang, Science 2022, 375, [88] C. He, Z. Bi, Z. Chen, J. Guo, X. Xia, X. Lu, J. Min, H. Zhu, W. Ma,
434. L. Zuo, H. Chen, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2112511.
[61] X. Wang, W. Sun, Y. Tu, Q. Xiong, G. Li, Z. Song, Y. Wang, Y. Du, [89] W. Feng, S. Wu, H. Chen, L. Meng, F. Huang, H. Liang, J. Zhang,
Q. Chen, C. Deng, Z. Lan, P. Gao, J. Wu, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 446, Z. Wei, X. Wan, C. Li, Z. Yao, Y. Chen, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12,
137416. 2104060.
[62] Y. Zhang, N.-G. Park, ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 757. [90] B. Fan, W. Gao, X. Wu, X. Xia, Y. Wu, F. R. Lin, Q. Fan,
[63] S. Wang, Y. Li, J. Yang, T. Wang, B. Yang, Q. Cao, X. Pu, L. Etgar, X. Lu, W. J. Li, W. Ma, A. K. Y. Jen, Nat. Commun. 2022, 13,
J. Han, J. Zhao, X. Li, A. Hagfeldt, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2022, 61, 5946.
202116534. [91] R. Yu, X. Wei, G. Wu, T. Zhang, Y. Gong, B. Zhao, J. Hou, C. Yang,
[64] G. Yang, Z. Ni, Z. J. Yu, B. W. Larson, Z. Yu, B. Chen, A. Alasfour, Z. Tan, Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 822.
X. Xiao, J. M. Luther, Z. C. Holman, J. Huang, Nat. Photonics 2022, [92] Y. Cui, Y. Xu, H. Yao, P. Bi, L. Hong, J. Zhang, Y. Zu, T. Zhang,
16, 588. J. Qin, J. Ren, Z. Chen, C. He, X. Hao, Z. Wei, J. Hou, Adv. Mater.
[65] S. Tan, B. Yu, Y. Cui, F. Meng, C. Huang, Y. Li, Z. Chen, H. Wu, J. Shi, 2021, 33, 2102420.
Y. Luo, D. Li, Q. Meng, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2022, 61, 202201300. [93] J. Zhang, F. Bai, I. Angunawela, X. Xu, S. Luo, C. Li, G. Chai, H. Yu,
[66] J. Wen, Y. Zhao, Z. Liu, H. Gao, R. Lin, S. Wan, C. Ji, K. Xiao, Y. Chen, H. Hu, Z. Ma, H. Ade, H. Yan, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021,
Y. Gao, Y. Tian, J. Xie, C. J. Brabec, H. Tan, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 11, 2102596.
2110356. [94] J. Song, L. Zhu, C. Li, J. Xu, H. Wu, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Z. Tang,
[67] K. Xiao, Y.-H. Lin, M. Zhang, R. D. J. Oliver, X. Wang, Z. Liu, F. Liu, Y. Sun, Matter 2021, 4, 2542.
X. Luo, J. Li, D. Lai, H. Luo, R. Lin, J. Xu, Y. Hou, H. J. Snaith, [95] Y. Li, J. Song, Y. Dong, H. Jin, J. Xin, S. Wang, Y. Cai, L. Jiang,
H. Tan, Science 2022, 376, 762. W. Ma, Z. Tang, Y. Sun, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2110155.
[96] S. Mathew, A. Yella, P. Gao, R. Humphry-Baker, B. F. E. Curchod, [122] B. Fan, J. Xiong, Y. Zhang, C. Gong, F. Li, X. Meng, X. Hu, Z. Yuan,
N. Ashari-Astani, I. Tavernelli, U. Rothlisberger, M. K. Nazeeruddin, F. Wang, Y. Chen, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2201840.
M. Grätzel, Nat. Chem. 2014, 6, 242. [123] Q. Dong, M. Chen, Y. Liu, F. T. Eickemeyer, W. Zhao, Z. Dai, Y. Yin,
[97] P.-H. Chang, M. C. Sil, K. S. K. Reddy, C.-H. Lin, C.-M. Chen, ACS C. Jiang, J. Feng, S. Jin, S. Liu, S. M. Zakeeruddin, M. Grätzel,
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 25466. N. P. Padture, Y. Shi, Joule 2021, 5, 1587.
[98] A. K. Bharwal, L. Manceriu, C. Olivier, A. Mahmoud, C. Iojoiu, [124] P. Sun, G. Qu, Q. Hu, Y. Ma, H. Liu, Z.-X. Xu, Z. Huang, ACS Appl.
T. Toupance, C. M. Ruiz, M. Pasquinelli, D. Duché, J.-J. Simon, Energy Mater. 2022, 5, 3568.
C. Henrist, F. Alloin, Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 446, 136777. [125] Y. Han, Z. Hu, W. Zha, X. Chen, L. Yin, J. Guo, Z. Li, Q. Luo, W. Su,
[99] C. Liao, H. Wu, H. Tang, L. Wang, D. Cao, Sol. Energy 2022, 240, C.-Q. Ma, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2110276.
399. [126] Z. Chen, W. Song, K. Yu, J. Ge, J. Zhang, L. Xie, R. Peng, Z. Ge,
[100] R. Tang, S. Chen, Z.-H. Zheng, Z.-H. Su, J.-T. Luo, P. Fan, Joule 2021, 5, 2395.
X.-H. Zhang, J. Tang, G.-X. Liang, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2109078. [127] Y. Chen, J. Wan, G. Xu, X. Wu, X. Li, Y. Shen, F. Yang, X. Ou, Y. Li,
[101] Y. Wang, L. Peng, Z. Wang, G. Konstantatos, Adv. Energy Mater. Y. Li, Sci China Chem 2022, 65, 1164.
2022, 12, 2200700. [128] N. Cui, Y. Song, C.-H. Tan, K. Zhang, X. Yang, S. Dong, B. Xie,
[102] C. Jiang, J. Zhou, R. Tang, W. Lian, X. Wang, X. Lei, H. Zeng, F. Huang, npj Flexible Electron. 2021, 5, 31.
C. Zhu, W. Tang, T. Chen, Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14, 359. [129] B. Murali, K. Gireesh Baiju, R. Krishna Prasad, K. Jayanarayanan,
[103] S. Wang, Y. Zhao, B. Che, C. Li, X. Chen, R. Tang, J. Gong, X. Wang, D. Kumaresan, Sustainable Energy Fuels 2022, 6, 2503.
G. Chen, T. Chen, J. Li, X. Xiao, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2206242. [130] H. Lai, J. Luo, Y. Zwirner, S. Olthof, A. Wieczorek,
[104] Y. Wu, P. Zheng, J. Peng, M. Xu, Y. Chen, S. Surve, T. Lu, A. D. Bui, F. Ye, Q. Jeangros, X. Yin, F. Akhundova, T. Ma, R. He,
N. Li, W. Liang, L. Duan, B. Li, H. Shen, T. Duong, J. Yang, R. K. Kothandaraman, X. Chin, E. Gilshtein, A. Müller, C. Wang,
X. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Jin, Q. Chen, T. White, K. Catchpole, H. Zhou, J. Thiesbrummel, S. Siol, J. M. Prieto, T. Unold, M. Stolterfoht,
K. Weber, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200821. C. Chen, A. N. Tiwari, D. Zhao, F. Fu, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12,
[105] K. Liu, B. Chen, Z. J. Yu, Y. Wu, Z. Huang, X. Jia, C. Li, D. Spronk, 2202438.
Z. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Qu, Z. C. Holman, J. Huang, J. Mater. Chem. [131] L. Sun, W. Wang, L. Hao, Z. Jia, Y. Zhao, G. Zhi, H. Yao, Mater. Sci.
A 2022, 10, 1343. Semicond. Process. 2022, 138, 106301.
[106] M. Jošt, E. Köhnen, A. Al-Ashouri, T. Bertram, Š. Tomšič, [132] L. Sun, W. Wang, L. Hao, A. Raza, Y. Zhao, Z. Tang, G. Zhi, H. Yao,
A. Magomedov, E. Kasparavicius, T. Kodalle, B. Lipovšek, Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 19891.
V. Getautis, R. Schlatmann, C. A. Kaufmann, S. Albrecht, M. Topič, [133] W. Xie, Q. Sun, Q. Yan, J. Wu, C. Zhang, Q. Zheng, Y. Lai, H. Deng,
ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 1298. S. Cheng, Small 2022, 18, 2201347.
[107] K. Datta, J. Wang, D. Zhang, V. Zardetto, W. H. M. Remmerswaal, [134] Q. Zhao, H. Shen, Y. Xu, K. Gao, D. Chen, Y. Li, ACS Appl. Energy
C. H. L. Weijtens, M. M. Wienk, R. A. J. Janssen, Adv. Mater. 2022, Mater. 2022, 5, 3668.
34, 2110053. [135] D.-Y. Jung, Y.-R. Jeong, M. S. Mina, S.-E. Lee, E. Enkhbayar, J. Kim,
[108] H. Gao, Q. Lu, K. Xiao, Q. Han, R. Lin, Z. Liu, H. Li, L. Li, X. Luo, Curr. Appl. Phys. 2022, 41, 66.
Y. Gao, Y. Wang, J. Wen, Z. Zou, Y. Zhou, H. Tan, Sol. RRL 2021, 5, [136] S. Pouladi, C. Favela, W. Wang, M. Moradnia, N.-I. Kim,
2100814. S. Shervin, J. Chen, S. Sharma, G. Yang, M.-C. Nguyen, R. Choi,
[109] J. Wang, V. Zardetto, K. Datta, D. Zhang, M. M. Wienk, J. Kim, A. Fedorenko, B. Bogner, J. Bao, S. M. Hubbard,
R. A. J. Janssen, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5254. V. Selvamanickam, J.-H. Ryou, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2022,
[110] Y. Huang, L. Meng, H. Liang, M. Li, H. Chen, C. Jiang, K. Zhang, 243, 111791.
F. Huang, Z. Yao, C. Li, X. Wan, Y. Chen, J. Mater. Chem. A 2022, [137] W. L. Rance, J. M. Burst, D. M. Meysing, C. A. Wolden,
10, 11238. M. O. Reese, T. A. Gessert, W. K. Metzger, S. Garner, P. Cimo,
[111] Z. Zheng, J. Wang, P. Bi, J. Ren, Y. Wang, Y. Yang, X. Liu, S. Zhang, T. M. Barnes, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 104, 143903.
J. Hou, Joule 2022, 6, 171. [138] B. Tyagi, H. B. Lee, N. Kumar, W.-Y. Jin, K.-J. Ko, M. M. Ovhal,
[112] S. H. Kang, M. J. Jeong, Y. K. Eom, I. T. Choi, S. M. Kwon, Y. Yoo, R. Sahani, H.-J. Chung, J. Seo, J.-W. Kang, Nano Energy 2022, 95,
J. Kim, J. Kwon, J. H. Park, H. K. Kim, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 106978.
1602117. [139] S. Seo, K. Akino, J.-S. Nam, A. Shawky, H.-S. Lin, H. Nagaya,
[113] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, Prog. E. I. Kauppinen, R. Xiang, Y. Matsuo, I. Jeon, S. Maruyama, Adv.
Photovoltaics 2013, 21, 1. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 9, 2101595.
[114] M. A. Green, E. D. Dunlop, J. Hohl-Ebinger, M. Yoshita, [140] S. Yoon, H. U. Ha, H.-J. Seok, H.-K. Kim, D.-W. Kang, Adv. Funct.
N. Kopidakis, X. Hao, Prog. Photovoltaics 2021, 29, 657. Mater. 2022, 32, 2111760.
[115] M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, E. D. Dunlop, [141] S. Lie, A. Bruno, L. H. Wong, L. Etgar, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
D. H. Levi, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, Prog. Photovoltaics 2017, 25, 3. 2022, 14, 11339.
[116] Y. Wang, T. Li, X. Chen, L. Zhang, Mater. Lett. 2022, 321, 132460. [142] D. Han, S. Han, Z. Bu, Y. Deng, C. Liu, W. Guo, Sol. RRL 2022, 6,
[117] M. Chen, Q. Dong, C. Xiao, X. Zheng, Z. Dai, Y. Shi, J. M. Luther, 2200441.
N. P. Padture, ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 2256. [143] L. Zheng, M. Li, S. Dai, Y. Wu, Y. Cai, X. Zhu, S. Ma, D. Yun, J.-F. Li,
[118] Z. Zheng, F. Li, J. Gong, Y. Ma, J. Gu, X. Liu, S. Chen, M. Liu, Adv. J. Phys. Chem. C 2021, 125, 18623.
Mater. 2022, 34, 2109879. [144] W. Liu, S. Sun, L. Zhou, Y. Cui, W. Zhang, J. Hou, F. Liu, S. Xu,
[119] L. Yang, J. Feng, Z. Liu, Y. Duan, S. Zhan, S. Yang, K. He, X. Zhu, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2022, 61, 202116111.
Y. Li, Y. Zhou, N. Yuan, J. Ding, S. Liu, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, [145] S. Liu, H. Li, X. Wu, D. Chen, L. Zhang, X. Meng, L. Tan, X. Hu,
2201681. Y. Chen, Adv. Mater. 2022, 34, 2201604.
[120] S. Wu, Z. Li, J. Zhang, X. Wu, X. Deng, Y. Liu, J. Zhou, C. Zhi, [146] X. Yuan, R. Sun, Y. Wu, T. Wang, Y. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Yu, J. Guo,
X. Yu, W. C. H. Choy, Z. Zhu, A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, Q. Wu, J. Min, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2200107.
2105539. [147] H. I. Jeong, S. Biswas, S. C. Yoon, S.-J. Ko, H. Kim, H. Choi, Adv.
[121] X. Meng, X. Hu, Y. Zhang, Z. Huang, Z. Xing, C. Gong, L. Rao, Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2102397.
H. Wang, F. Wang, T. Hu, L. Tan, Y. Song, Y. Chen, Adv. Funct. [148] J. Jing, S. Dong, K. Zhang, Z. Zhou, Q. Xue, Y. Song, Z. Du,
Mater. 2021, 31, 2106460. M. Ren, F. Huang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200453.
[149] X. Huang, L. Zhang, Y. Cheng, J. Oh, C. Li, B. Huang, L. Zhao, [154] Y. Zhao, R. R. Lunt, Adv. Energy Mater. 2013, 3, 1143.
J. Deng, Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, F. Wu, X. Hu, C. Yang, L. Chen, Y. Chen, [155] Y. Zhao, G. A. Meek, B. G. Levine, R. R. Lunt, Adv. Opt. Mater.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2108634. 2014, 2, 606.
[150] D. Wang, Y. Li, G. Zhou, E. Gu, R. Xia, B. Yan, J. Yao, H. Zhu, X. Lu, [156] J. Sanchez-Diaz, R. S. Sánchez, S. Masi, M. Kreĉmarová,
H.-L. Yip, H. Chen, C.-Z. Li, Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 2629. A. O. Alvarez, E. M. Barea, J. Rodriguez-Romero, V. S. Chirvony,
[151] X. Xie, Y. Zhang, Y. Ren, L. He, Y. Yuan, J. Zhang, P. Wang, J. Phys. J. F. Sánchez-Royo, J. P. Martinez-Pastor, I. Mora-Seró,
Chem. C 2022, 126, 11007. https://emerging-pv.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/
[152] F. Odobel, T. Baron, W. Naim, I. Nikolinakos, B. Andrin, Add_SI_Stability-PSC_Joule.2022.02.014.pdf (accessed: June
Y. Pellegrin, D. Jacquemin, S. Haacke, F. Sauvage, Angew. Chem., 2022).
Int. Ed. 2022, 61, 202207459. [157] Q. Zhou, C. Cai, Q. Xiong, Z. Zhang, J. Xu, L. Liang, S. Wang,
[153] C. Yang, M. Moemeni, M. Bates, W. Sheng, B. Borhan, R. R. Lunt, W. Sun, Z. Yuan, P. Gao, Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12,
Adv. Opt. Mater. 2020, 8, 1901536. 2201243.

Advanced Energy Materials - 2022 - Almora - Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Energy Materials - 2022 - Almora - Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Energy Materials - 2022 - Almora - Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials Version 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review

Device Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Materials

Table 1. Equations and definitions considered in this work.

Nos. Equation Definitions and comments Refs.

(5) LUE = AVT · PCE LUE, light utilization efficiency [12]

Table 2. Abbreviations for PV technologies or material families considered in this work.

Abbreviation Meaning and comments

Table 3. Continued. Table 3. Continued.

1.46 18.2 897 25.7 78.9 b) [2]a)

1.76 9.6 786 17.0 72.0 PPDT2FBT:PC70BM [2]

1.05 9.4 457 32.5 63.3 Cu2ZnSnSe4 [2]

1.09 12.5 540 32.1 72.1 (Ag,Cu)2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]

1.14 12.6 541 35.4 65.9 Cu2ZnSn(S,Se)4 [2]a)

1.33 8.6 520 27.8 59.8 Sb2Se3 [100]

1.50 10.0 655 24.1 63.3 Sb2(S,Se)3 [31]a)

1.80 7.5 711 16.1 65.0 Sb2S3 [2]

1.11 1.63 24.1 1786 19.5 69.1 Si CsxFA1−xPb(I,Br)3 [2]

1.11 1.66 26.0 1820 19.2 75.4 Si Cs0.1MA0.9PbBr0.3I2.7 [2]

1.11 1.67 26.7 1756 19.2 79.2 Si PEA(I0.25SCN0.75) [2]

1.12 1.64 26.0 1760 19.2 76.5 Si FA0.83MA0.17PbI3 [2]

1.13 1.67 28.3 1776 20.1 79.6 Si FAMAPb(BrClI)3 [37]a)

1.13 1.65 24.9 1735 19.5 73.5 Si CsFAPb(BrI)3 [2]

1.13 1.67 27.1 1886 19.1 75.3 Si CsFAMAPb(BrClI)3 [2]

1.14 1.68 27.5 1779 19.6 78.9 Si Cs0.22FA0.78PbBr0.45Cl0.09I2.55 [104]

1.14 1.69 26.0 1780 18.2 80.2 Si Cs0.15FA0.7055MA0.1445PbBr0.6I2.4 [105]

1.15 1.62 20.9 1690 15.9 77.6 Si MAPbI3 [2]

1.15 1.68 25.4 1800 17.8 79.4 Si Cs0.15FA0.71MA0.14PbBr0.6I2.4 [2]

1.15 1.68 25.0 1770 18.4 77.0 Si Cs0.25FA0.75PbBr0.6 I2.4 [2]

1.16 1.62 19.2 1701 16.1 70.1 Si MAPbI3 [2]

1.42 1.85 24.3 2160 14.3 78.8 GaAs Cs0.16FA0.80MA0.04PbBr1.50I1.50 [2]

1.01 1.61 24.3 1570 21.0 73.6 CuInSe2 Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.1PbI2.7Br0.3 [35]

1.01 1.61 23.5 1590 19.4 75.5 CuInSe2 Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.1PbI2.7Br0.3 [35]a)

1.10 1.65 22.4 1774 17.3 73.1 CIGS Cs0.09FA0.77MA0.14PbBr0.42I2.58 [2]b)

1.11 1.64 21.6 1580 18.0 76.0 CIGS Cs0.05FA0.7885MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 [2]

1.11 1.65 23.3 1680 19.2 71.9 CIGS Cs0.05FA0.7885MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 [2]

1.11 1.68 24.2 1770 18.8 71.2 CIGS Cs0.05FA0.7315MA0.2185PbBr0.69I2.31 [106]

1.26 1.79 23.1 1950 15.8 75.0 FA0.66MA0.34Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.05(FAMA0.95)K0.05Pb(BrI)3 [107]

1.26 1.80 26.2 2040 16 80.1 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.4DMA0.1FA0.5PbBr0.71Cl0.15I2.14 [66]

1.26 1.82 24.0 1986 15.8 76.6 FSA:FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]a)

1.26 1.82 25.5 2009 15.9 79.8 FSA:FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]

1.27 1.81 24.3 2030 15.2 78.8 Cs0.05FA0.5MA0.45Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.4FA0.6PbBr1.05I1.95 [2]

1.27 1.81 24.5 1927 15.9 80.0 FA0.7MA0.3Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]a)

1.27 1.82 23.2 1890 15.4 79.8 Cs0.2FA0.8Pb0.5Sn0.5I3 Cs0.2FA0.8PbBr1.2I1.8 [108]

1.21 1.83 21.7 1880 15.7 73.5 PTB7-Th:BTPV-4Cl-eC9 FA0.6MA0.4PbBr1.2I1.8 [68]

1.25 1.91 15.0 1710 12.0 73.4 PTB7-Th:COi8DFIC:PC71BM CsPbBrI2 [2]

1.38 1.91 21.1 1960 13.3 80.9 PM6:Y6-BO CsPbBrI2 [2]

1.40 1.83 15.1 1850 11.5 71.0 PBDB-T:SN6IC-4F Cs0.1FA0.54MA0.36PbBr1.4I1.8 [2]

1.40 1.82 19.5 1925 13.1 77.2 PBDBT-2F:Y6:PC71BM Cs0.18FA0.8MA0.02PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]a)

1.40 1.82 20.4 1902 13.1 81.5 PBDBT-2F:Y6:PC71BM Cs0.18FA0.8MA0.02PbBr1.2I1.8 [2]

1.59 1.93 10.5 1170 12.9 70.0 FA0.85MA0.15PbBr0.45I2.49 N719 [2]

1.59 19.3 1090 22.7 78.1 MAPbI3–NH4Cl [2]

.51I2.49 1.79 6.5 729 13.2 68.0 N719 [2]

AVT Eg PCE Voc Jsc FF Absorber Refs.

a)Certified 15 1.64 11.4 1094 16.8 62.0 Cs0.05FA0.775MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 [141]

49 1.37 7.2 670 14.8 72.6 PCE-10:BT-CIC:TT-FIC [2]

1.53 23.5 20.9 – 4.3 – α-FAPbI3 MPP, w-LED, N2, 35 °C [2]

1.58 23.1 22.9 – 4.6 – Cs0.05FA0.9MA0.05 Pb Br0.26I2.74 MPP, N2 [19]

1.64b) 19.7 17.2 – 3.5 – Cs0.5FA0.7885MA0.1615PbBr0.51I2.49 MPP, w-LED, N2, 20 °C [2]

1.69 6.8 6.7 – 1.3 – CsGe0.5Sn0.5I3 MPP, AM1.5G, N2, 45 °C [2]