Heriot-Watt University

Research Gateway

Review on the Sources of Power Loss in Monofacial and Bifacial

Photovoltaic Technologies

Citation for published version:

Kitayama da Silva, M, Gul, MS & Chaudhry, H 2021, 'Review on the Sources of Power Loss in Monofacial
and Bifacial Photovoltaic Technologies', Energies, vol. 14, no. 23, 7935. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14237935

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.3390/en14237935

Link:
Link to publication record in Heriot-Watt Research Portal

Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Published In:
Energies

Publisher Rights Statement:

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via Heriot-Watt Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and /
or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by
the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy

Heriot-Watt University has made every reasonable effort to ensure that the content in Heriot-Watt Research
Portal complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.

Download date: 25. Nov. 2024

 energies
Review
Review on the Sources of Power Loss in Monofacial and
Bifacial Photovoltaic Technologies
Michelle Kitayama da Silva 1, *, Mehreen Saleem Gul 1 and Hassam Chaudhry 2

1 School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK;
[email protected]
2 School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University,
Dubai P.O. Box 38103, United Arab Emirates; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: An evaluation of the degradation effects on photovoltaic modules is essential to minimise

uncertainties in the system operation. Bifacial photovoltaic technology is attracting attention due
to the capacity of generating energy from the front and rear sides. This paper presents a review
of degradation factors, for both conventional monofacial and bifacial photovoltaic modules, to
highlight how the current and voltage characteristics of these technologies are affected by degradation.
Microcracking, encapsulant discoloration, and light induced degradation seem to have similar effects
on both modules. Contrarily, bifacial modules are more prone to potential induced degradation as the
electromagnetic shielding is affected by the bifaciality. Bifacial devices are less affected by light and
elevated temperature induced degradation. The degradation (1.3%) is similar for both technologies,
up to 40 kWh/m2 of solar radiation. Above this value, monofacial degradation increases faster,
reaching values of 7%. For tilted systems, the front side soiling degradation of 0.30% per day is
similar for both technologies. For vertical systems, soiling loss for bifacial is considerably lower with
values of 0.02% per day.






Keywords: bifacial; degradation; mismatch; photovoltaic; PV failure; shading effect
Citation: da Silva, M.K.; Gul, M.S.;
Chaudhry, H. Review on the Sources
of Power Loss in Monofacial and
Bifacial Photovoltaic Technologies. 1. Introduction
Energies 2021, 14, 7935. https://
Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy is one of the most promising renewable energy sources.
doi.org/10.3390/en14237935
It occupies the second largest portion of the global installed capacity of renewable energy [1].
This energy source has experienced significant growth in the last decade, coming from a
Received: 22 October 2021
Accepted: 23 November 2021
total installed capacity of 40.29 GW in 2010 to 707.5 GW in 2020 [2]. The search for reducing
Published: 26 November 2021
the costs and improving the efficiency of PV systems has led to the development of different
materials, modules, and system designs. The different materials and technologies that show
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
a significant improvement of efficiency for a small cost, are quickly introduced to the PV
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
market. This results in many PV systems been installed without sufficient understanding
published maps and institutional affil- regarding their long term durability and reliability. Therefore, it can lead to an unexpected
iations. degradation, which compromises the longevity of the whole system and affect the Levelised
Costs of Energy (LCOE) [3] by the reduction of the energy yield and/or by the increase of
the operating expenditure (OPEX).
A recent fast-growing technology is bifacial PV (BPV) modules. This technology has
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
attracted market attention and is expected to be the next breakthrough technology in the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
field [4]. Currently, BPV corresponds to approximately 20% of the market share of PV
This article is an open access article
technologies. This number is expected to increase to 70% by 2030 [5]. This increasing
distributed under the terms and interest arises from the BPV capacity to convert additional solar irradiance from the rear
conditions of the Creative Commons side, which allows it to obtain a higher energy yield compared to monofacial technology,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// especially for PV systems installed in areas with a high albedo and high latitudes [6]. This
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ energy gain between monofacial PV (MPV) and BPV technologies is determined by the
4.0/). bifacial gain, which is the ratio between the power produced by bifacial cells/modules and

Energies 2021, 14, 7935. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14237935 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 7935 2 of 29

the power produced by monofacial cells/modules [4]. For smaller bifacial systems, bifacial
gain ranges from 15 to 25% and 5 to 15% for larger commercial systems [7–9]. Additionally,
the fabrication of BPV modules does not require significant changes in the current process
of fabrication of monofacial modules. It is estimated that the average additional cost for
BPV modules is 3% [10], therefore representing a small increase in the capital expenditure
(CAPEX) but generating a higher energy yield [10].
The lifetime of a PV module is expected to be from 20 to 30 years [11]. Throughout this
period, certain limits for the power output reduction are considered acceptable, such as a
maximum reduction of 10% of the initial power output after the first 10 years of operation,
and 20% of the initial power after the first 25 years [12]. This power output reduction
over the years is known as degradation rate and is an important factor for stakeholders
as it directly impacts the amount of energy produced. The degradation rate can change
according to many factors such as environmental conditions and handling of the modules.
Therefore, an accurate prediction of the losses as the module ages is essential to promote the
growth of this industry. The process of estimating the performance includes the module’s
efficiency in outdoor conditions and also the analysis of how this efficiency decreases over
time due to degradation of materials and components [12], as well as other factors such as
soiling, mismatch, and partial shading.
In operation, PV modules are vulnerable to diverse degradation phenomena such
as encapsulant yellowing, microcracks, metal contacts detaching, breaking and rusting,
light-induced degradation, and potential induced degradation [13]. It is important to
have a deep understanding of the degradation rate as it can eventually lead to module
failure or, in case of the underestimation of the degradation rate, lead to an increase in the
financial risk [14]. For MPV, the average degradation rate per year is approximately 0.36%
for mono-crystalline silicon and 0.64% for multi-crystalline silicone [14]. Although it is not
yet widely explored in the literature, the degradation rate for bifacial PV of the system is
normally under 1% per year [15]. However, studies have shown that in extreme conditions,
under high temperatures and irradiances in desert conditions, the overall degradation can
reach nearly 2% [16].
Another factor that causes a significant drop in the power output is the mismatch
effect, which represents the non-identical current and voltage characteristics of PV cells
within a module or in a string [6,17]. This effect occurs because the current and voltage (I-V)
characteristics of the cells within a module are never identical and worsen when the cells
are exposed to different levels of irradiance and temperature. It is an important issue in PV
systems that needs to be taken into account in any PV installation as cells connected in series
do not perform at their specific maximum power point simultaneously. The performance
of a PV module is expressed as a collective maximum point instead [17]. The consequences
of mismatches can be temporary or permanent depending on their intensity. It can affect
the power output of the PV modules by shifting the module’s operating point further
away from the ideal maximum power point [18]. Additionally, it can potentially affect the
reliability of the PV system by leading to a reverse bias built up across the mismatched cell.
This can make the weak cell start to behave as a load, sinking the current generated by the
other cells, which can cause a significant increase in the cell’s operating temperature [18–20].
If the reverse bias voltage is higher than the breakdown voltage of the cell, potentially
irreversible damage might occur as a large current concentrates in one specific area. This
can originate a thermal breakdown of the cell, known as ‘Hot Spot’. Some consequences of
this significant increase in temperature are the burning the ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA)
and/or back-sheet as well as the delamination of the encapsulated materials [18].
Though the manufacturing costs of crystalline silicon (C-Si), which includes both
MPV and BPV modules, has decreased significantly, the actual performance and viability
of the system are expressed by the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE). The LCOE is a
relation between the sum of CAPEX and OPEX (which represent the life cycle costs of
the system) and the lifetime electricity generation (yield) [21]. Thus, understanding the
degradation of PV modules and the power output losses of MPV and BPV modules in
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 3 of 29

operation is of great importance for an accurate prediction of the system viability and to
enable manufacturers to find alternatives to improve materials and processes to prevent
premature ageing, degradation, and failure. Therefore, reducing the total energy generation
and lifetime of the module. This degradation and mismatch may cause the module to
perform under the expected power rating informed in their data-sheets. Therefore, to
enable the widespread of solar PV systems it is necessary to accurately estimate the real
performance and the losses involved in the energy conversion process. A deeper study in
this area is essential as most software available in the market for PV systems simulation
(e.g., PVSyst [22], SAM [23] and PV*Sol [24]) consider these losses as a constant value over
the year.
The literature to date lacks information comparing the degradation of MPV and BPV
modules. The losses caused by different degradation affect each PV module technology
differently. Therefore, to promote the adoption of BPV technology, it is necessary to
understand how resilient this technology is regarding the short and long term losses due
to degradation and mismatch. The contribution in this work provides a comprehensive
review of the state-of-the-art regarding the degradation and mismatch that directly affect
the performance of crystalline silicon PV cells and modules. A comparison of BPV and
MPV losses for each degradation is provided wherever available. This review aims to
provide a better understanding of the losses involved in the energy conversion process,
semiconductor internal losses, and the environmental effect on the performance of these
two module technologies, thereby allowing a better estimation for the LCOE.
The next section introduces the current-voltage curve parameters that represent the
performance of a solar cell and the effect of losses. Section 3 describes the environmental
factors that affect the performance of a PV system as well as the effects of internal ohmic
losses within the semiconductor and metal contacts. Finally, Section 4 describes the main
degradation effects that contribute to the increase of losses in monofacial and bifacial PV
cells followed by the conclusions.

2. I-V Curve Parameters

The most used method to analyze the performance of a PV device is by the mea-
surement of the current and voltage characteristics. In this method, a known irradiance
is applied to the solar cell at a known temperature while it is connected to a variable
resistive load. This load varies from the short circuit condition to the open circuit condition
while both the voltage in the output terminals of the PV cell and the output current are
measured [25]. The current and voltage curve represents a diagnostic of the characteristics
of the photovoltaic device under certain levels of irradiance and temperature. A detailed
analysis of these curves is essential to understand the physical phenomena that happen
internally in the PV device under different external scenarios. The I-V curve of a solar cell
presents important information about the performance of the device such as open-circuit
voltage (Voc ), short-circuit current (Isc ), maximum power current (Imp ) and voltage (Vmp ),
efficiency (η), and fill factor (FF) as shown in Figure 1. These parameters are essential for
the testing, calibration, commissioning, design, fabrication, maintenance, and controlling
of a photovoltaic system [26].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 4 of 29

Figure 1. Ideal shape of solar cell I-V characteristic curve.

The open-circuit voltage represents the voltage between the terminals of the PV
cell/module without any load connected to it (open circuit condition in the PV device’s
terminals). At this voltage, there is no output current. The short-circuit current represents
the current flowing through the short-circuited terminals when the voltage at the terminals
is zero. The maximum power current and voltage represent the current and voltage levels
that provide the highest power output as can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Ideal shape of solar cell I-V and P-V characteristic curves.

The I-V curve also shows parameters that represent the efficiency (η) and fill factor
(FF) of the cell, which indicates how efficient the cell is at power conversion. The efficiency
is defined by the relation between the maximum power generated (Imax × Vmax ) and the
total irradiance incident on the area of the cell, as can be seen in Equation (1). The fill factor
represents the quality of the solar cell. It is obtained by the relation between the maximum
power (Imax × Vmax ) and the theoretical power (Isc × Voc ) as can be seen in Equation (2).

Pout Imax × Vmax

η= = G
(1)
Pin A
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 5 of 29

Imax × Vmax
FF = (2)
Isc × Voc
Please refer to Table 1 for the list of used symbols.

Table 1. Definitions of the symbols used in Equations (1) and (2).

Symbol Definition
η Efficiency
FF Fill Factor
Imax Maximum current
Vmax Maximum voltage
Isc Short-circuit current
Voc Open-circuit voltage
Pout Maximum power output of the cell
Pin Power received per unity area (W/m2 )
G Irradiance incident on the PV cell
A Area of the PV cell

To estimate the performance of PV cells, electrical models with solar cell equivalent
circuits are used to obtain the output parameters of the cells. One of the most widely used
circuits is the single diode model, which is shown in Figure 3. This equivalent circuit is
composed of a current source representing the photocurrent, a reverse-biased diode, a
series, and a shunt resistance. For BPV modules, the equivalent circuit can be adapted,
as seen in Figure 3b, which has an additional current source representing the front side
photocurrent and rear side photocurrent separately [21]. The single diode model has been
widely validated to emulate the performance of MPV modules [27–31] although, for BPV,
despite it being used in few researches [31–33], its accuracy has not been widely explored.

Figure 3. Solar cell equivalent electric circuit that represents the electrical performance solar cells.
(a) Equivalent circuit of a monofacial PV solar cell, (b) Equivalent circuit of a bifacial PV solar cell.

For this model, Equation (3) represents the current-voltage relation of a silicon PV
cells connected in series forming a PV module.
V V
+ Rs .I + Rs .I
 
n n
I = I ph − Is exp −1 − (3)
a.k.T Rsh

Please refer to Table 2 for the list of used symbols.

Energies 2021, 14, 7935 6 of 29

Table 2. Definition of the symbols used in Equation (3).

Symbol Definition
I Output current
Is Diode saturation current
I ph Photogenerated current
V Voltage at the terminals of the cell/module
Rs Series resistance
Rsh Shunt resistance
n Number of cells connected in series
a Diode quality factor
k Boltzmann’s constant (k = 1.3806503 × 10−23 J/K)
T Ambient temperature (K)

3. Factors That Impact on the I-V Curve

In operation, solar cells are exposed to different environmental conditions such as
variable temperature and irradiance intensities. The current, voltage, and efficiency of MPV
and BPV vary according to these environmental parameters and internal losses caused
by parasitic resistances and degradation [34,35]. The performance parameters of a solar
cell using the single diode model mentioned previously (i.e., open-circuit voltage, short-
circuit current, photocurrent, series and shunt resistances, fill factor and efficiency) depend
directly on the irradiance and temperature to which the cell is exposed to as well as the
ohmic losses [35]. The effects of the increase of series resistance and decrease of shunt
resistance can cause premature degradation of the PV device, which can cause temporary
power reduction or permanent damage [35].

3.1. Ohmic Losses

3.1.1. Series Resistance
The series resistance represents the sum of several losses within a PV cell or module.
This resistance can increase due to many degradation mechanisms such as metal contacts
corrosion, junction box contacts, and defects of the interconnections between cells [35].
These losses can be in the semiconductor, metal connections, metallization process, and
bus bar between the cells within a PV module. The increase of the series resistance deforms
the cell’s I-V curve by increasing the voltage slope of the device, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Effect of different series resistance (Rs ) on the I-V curve of the cell [35].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 7 of 29

3.1.2. Shunt Resistance

The shunt resistance represents the equivalent of any parallel high conductivity path
that may occur across the solar cell semiconductor p-n junction. Ideally, the higher the
value of this resistance the better. The reduction of shunt resistance deforms the shape
of the I-V curve of the cell by increasing the current slope, as shown in Figure 5. This
resistance is also known as leakage current resistance; when its value decreases, more
leakage current starts flowing through the shunt paths and therefore the output current
provided to a load circuit is reduced significantly [36]. As a result, the power output,
efficiency, and fill factor are reduced as shown in [36].

Figure 5. Effect of different shunt resistances (Rsh ) on the I-V curve of the cell [35].

3.2. Environmental Factors

3.2.1. Irradiance
The irradiance variation affects the generated current more significantly than the
voltage. The current increases with the increase of solar irradiance incident on the surface
of the cell, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Effects of different levels of irradiance incident (G) on the surface of the PV cell on the I-V
curve of the cell [35].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 8 of 29

In Crystalline Silicon solar cells, parameters such as short-circuit current, photocurrent,

and diode ideality factor increase linearly with the irradiance levels, while the open-
circuit voltage and efficiency increase logarithmically, and the saturation current increases
exponentially. The shunt resistance increases slightly with the increase of irradiance levels
until a certain point (<500 W/m2 ) from which it becomes a constant. Studies shows that
the fill factor for these cells increase with the increase of irradiance up to a certain point
(<500 W/m2 ) then it decreases almost linearly due to the effects of the series resistance.
Regarding the resistances, the shunt resistance decreases linearly while the series resistance
does not present a significant variation [37–40]
The effects of the irradiance incident on BPV is more complex than MPV. The BPV
module’s rear side generally presents a distorted rear side I-V characteristic due to the
self-shading effect caused by junction box, cabling, frame, label and mounting frame [41].
Additionally, the rear side irradiance is mainly composed of diffuse and reflected irradiance
which makes it likely to be non-uniform [42]. According to the IEC TS 60904-1-2 [43],
the characterisation process of BPV can be performed with single-side illumination or
bifacial illumination. Schmid et al. [41] performed a comparison between these two
methods and results show that the deviation of the short circuit current (Isc ) obtained
from each method was below ±0.3%. The open-circuit voltage (Voc ) obtained did not
present significant changes according to the method used. Additionally, this study has
shown that for low irradiance levels the maximum power point (Pmp ) is more affected in
the single-side illumination method. This occurs due to the effect of the shunt resistance,
which is described in Section 3.1.2. Although, for higher irradiance levels of the bifacial
illumination, the power output is lower due to the effect of the series resistance.

3.2.2. Temperature
The irradiance incident on the PV module can be absorbed by the cell or transmitted
through it. The fraction of the irradiance transmitted is mostly IR (or near) light and it
can be conducted through and out of the module, absorbed or reflected back to the cell.
The portion of the solar irradiance absorbed by the solar cell is partially converted into
electricity and heat due to conversion losses. The higher module’s operating temperature
compared to the ambient temperature comes from the wasted energy generated during
the photovoltaic energy conversion. From the irradiance incident on the surface of the PV
panel, approximately only 20% is converted into electricity. The majority of the wasted
energy is converted into heat [44]. This heat impacts directly on the power output of
the modules and their efficiency. Many authors consider that parameters such as open-
circuit voltage, short-circuit current and maximum power voltage vary linearly with the
temperature [45–48]. The temperature has very little effect on the current although the
increase in temperature shows a significant reduction of the open-circuit voltage, maximum
power and Fill Factor [44,45,49,50], as shown in Figure 7. In the worst cases, the long time
high operating temperature condition can cause irreversible degradation effects.
As BPV are capable of absorbing extra irradiance from their rear side, some researchers
argue that the operating temperature of BPV is higher than MPV [51]. However, others
defend that the BPV operating temperature is cooler compared to MPV due to the higher
infrared (IR) light transmission through a BPV [52,53]. Lamers et al. [52], compared the heat
balance of a monofacial Al-BSF solar cell, a white back sheet, and a glass-glass bifacial n-
PERT solar cell. Results indoors show that the glass-glass structure presented a 12% higher
effective heat compared to MPV with white back sheet when illuminated with 1000 W/m2
on the front and 200 W/m2 on the rear side. Although, in outdoor operating conditions,
the glass-glass bifacial module presents a lower temperature than MPV, especially under
high levels of irradiance, despite the higher power output and the higher effective heat
input. Although, BPV modules suffer the effects of the self-shading on the rear side due to
connections, frame, and mounting structure, which might affect the operating temperature
of the modules. It is expected that glass-glass BPV modules present a less significant
self-shading effect due to the absence of a frame. Both bifacial modules types (glass-
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 9 of 29

glass and glass-foil) present a considerable temperature non-uniformity at different points

of the module’s area. As presented by Kenny et al. [54], this non-uniformity can reach
approximately 6 ◦ C and vary throughout the day.

Figure 7. Effects of different operating temperature levels of the cell (T) on the I-V curve of the
cell [35].

4. PV Module Degradation
The term degradation is defined as a gradual deterioration of the characteristics of
a material, component, or system. This deterioration may cause an impact on the sys-
tem capacity to operate within the expected limits and therefore impact directly on their
operating conditions [13]. For crystalline silicon solar cells (c-Si), the most frequent degra-
dation causes are the discolouration of the encapsulant, microcracks, potential induced
degradation (PID), light-induced degradation (LID) and light and elevated temperature
degradation (LeTID). These types of degradation will be described in more details in the
following subsections.

4.1. Encapsulant Discoloration and Delamination

C-Si PV modules correspond to the largest proportion of the market share worldwide,
occupying a total of 95% [5]. These modules are composed of a front glass, solar cells,
and metal contacts involved by a polymeric encapsulant and a back sheet. The module
encapsulant places an important role in the bonding multiple layers that compose a PV
module. This encapsulant must have high optical transmittance, provide good adhesion to
the different materials within a PV module, and have the capability to support mechanical
stress due to expansion caused by different thermal coefficients, as well as good dielectric
properties [55]. These characteristics are essential to improve the solar irradiance reaching
the PV cell’s surface and the resilience of the PV module exposed to outdoor conditions. In
the PV market, Ethyl Vinyl Acetate (EVA) is the most used encapsulant material due to its
low cost and high thermal stability [56]. This material has the disadvantage of yellowing
or browning when exposed to UV light and high temperature for a long period [55]. This
change in the color impacts the material transmissivity and reliability of the PV module as
described in Figure 8.
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 10 of 29

Figure 8. Encapsulant discoloration causes and effects [57].

One of the initial effects is the reduction of the transmissivity of the encapsulant
caused by the change of the encapsulant color as represented in Figure 9b. This effect
occurs when the module is exposed to UV radiation and temperatures above 50 ◦ C [58].
The intensity of the discoloring varies from yellow shade, brown, and dark brown. This
discoloration impacts the amount of solar irradiance that reaches the surface of the solar
cell. As a consequence of the lower irradiance levels, the short-circuit current Isc of the
cell/module reduces, as seen in the I-V curve in Figure 10. impacting directly on the
module’s efficiency [56,57].

Figure 9. Degradation of PV module. (a) Ideal cell, (b) Discolouring effect, (c) Delamination effect.
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 11 of 29

Figure 10. Encapsulant degradation effect on I-V curve [59].

Another problem caused by the degradation of the encapsulant results in a chemical

effect. In the degradation process of the EVA, acetic acid and other volatile gases are
produced. These gases get trapped within the layers of the PV module, creating bubbles
and causing the delamination of the layers as represented in Figure 9c. This impacts
significantly on the performance, safety, and reliability of the PV module. Additionally,
acetic acid causes corrosion of the metallic contacts of the solar cells, which increase the
losses due to the increase of the module’s series resistance (Rs ) [57,60]. The change in colour
of the encapsulant and the appearance of bubbles, delamination, and corrosion, do not
appear evenly on the surface of the module. This contributes to the increase of mismatch
losses, which can affect BPV due to the rear side mismatch as explained in Section 5.2.
Most studies regarding the module degradation due to the exposure to UV light focus
on the degradation of the EVA encapsulant [16,57,59,60]. Realini et al. [61] performed a
study from 1982 to 2003 on a monofacial system installed in Switzerland. The analysis
showed that 98% of the modules presented yellowing of the encapsulant. The effect of the
discoloration of the encapsulant was directly related to the severity of the discolouring. For
partially yellowed modules, the short-circuit current showed a reduction of 6–8% below
the nominal value; while for complete yellowed modules, the short-circuit current can be
from 10 to 13% less than the nominal value. Consequently, the module maximum power is
also reduced according to the intensity of the discolouring [59] as seen in Figure 10.
Indoor tests performed on bifacial cells without the encapsulant and exposing the
front and rear side to the same irradiance levels, showed that the rear side passivation
layer is more sensitive to UV light than the front side. In PERC type cells, the degradation
caused a significant drop in the Isc [62]. The power loss of the rear side showed to be 2.4%
per year while the front side only 1.4% per year [62]. Although, with EVA encapsulant
and outdoor conditions, the front side of the module receives a higher dose of irradiance
compared to the rear side. Albadwawi et al. [16] found that in extreme desert conditions,
the front side discoloration can cause a degradation of 1.3–1.88% per year while for the
rear side, this degradation is around 0.39–0.78% per year. Additionally, as BPV modules
use common double glass technology, they showed to be more likely to trap acetic acid
and gases produced during the degradation of the encapsulant as the glass layer is less
breathable than a back sheet [63].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 12 of 29

Strategies to minimise the effect of discoloration and the formation of acetic acid
commonly found in EVA encapsulants have been the focus of many studies [61,64]. One
of the solutions would be the replacement of the EVA as the encapsulant for Polyolefin
elastomers (POE) or Thermoplastic elastomers (TPO) which are starting to be used as
encapsulants in small scale. The benefit of using these material is the higher transmittance
and the higher chemical inertness compared to EVA. No hydrolysis or acetic acid occurs
using POE or TPO encapsulants [64].

4.2. Microcracks
Microfissure or microcracks can occur at different stages of the solar PV module’s
lifetime. The fabrication, transport, and handling of PV modules require attention due to the
risks of mechanical impact, which can create small cracks on the PV cell [65]. Microcracks
in PV cells can appear or worsen during transportation, installation, load, environmental
stresses, or even improper cleaning or maintenance. On the field, the modules in operation
are exposed to climate conditions, which might threaten the performance of the device,
such as high-speed wind, rain, and snow. These factors can cause mechanical stress
and/or thermal stress, which can damage the cells and create microcracks [66]. This issue
increases the likelihood of power loss and even the occurrence of hot-spots [67]. Table 3
shows the main environmental and mechanical stresses that can lead to microcracks on the
PV module.

Table 3. Causes of microcracks.

Environmental Causes Mechanical Stress

Thermal cycling Inappropriate packing
Humidity and freezing Inappropriate transportation
Wind load Unsuitable installation techniques
Snow fall/Hail stones

These microcracks vary in size, shape, position, direction, and severity. Each classi-
fication affects the performance of the PV system in different intensities, as summarised
in Figure 11. In terms of sizing, it is considered a microcrack when its width is inferior to
30 µm. Fissures wider than 30 µm are classified as macrocracks [13]. Regarding the shape,
two main patterns are described, which is the line and start shape [68]. The line cracks are
usually caused by scratches, which frequently initiates during the crystalline silicon (c-Si)
wafer sawing or laser cutting. On the other hand, the star cracks originate from a point
of impact, causing mechanical stress to the surface of the cell, which creates several line
cracks in different directions and that normally cross each other [69]. The fissures can also
be classified in terms of their position, which can be facial or subfacial. Facial (or visible)
cracks are positioned on the surface of the cell, while subfacial cracks are located below the
surface, or have their origin on the surface and propagate in-depth [68].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 13 of 29

Figure 11. Classification of PV solar cell cracks according to the shape, directions, position, and
severity of the cracks.

In terms of the direction of the cracks, it can be divided into six categories; which
are diagonal cracks, parallel and perpendicular to busbars, ±45◦ , dendritic and multiple
directions, as can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Classification of crack directions. Types of cracks from left to right: No crack, perpendicu-
lar crack, parallel crack, dendritic crack, multiple directional cracks, +45◦ cracks and −45◦ cracks
(Reprinted from Renewable Energy, Vol 145, Lamprini Papargyri, Marios Theristis, Bernhard Ku-
bicek, Thomas Krametz, Christoph Mayr, Panos Papanastasiou, George Georghiou, Modelling and
experimental investigations of microcracks in crystalline silicon photovoltaics: A review, 2387–2408,
Copyright (2021), with permission from Elsevier) [68].

Regarding the severity of the microcracks, Kontges et al. [65], classified microcracks
into three different categories: Mode A, B, and C, as shown in Figure 13. Mode A fissures
do not represent a significant power loss [65], as they do not generate inactive areas on the
cell (electrically disconnected pieces), although they are a weak point on the cell and can
eventually evolve to more severe cracks such as modes B and C when exposed to outdoor
conditions with heat, wind, or snow [70].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 14 of 29

Figure 13. Electroluminescence microcrack modes A, B, and C (Reprinted from Solar Energy Materials
and Solar Cells, Vol 95, issue 4, Kntges, M., Kunze, I., Kajari-Schrder, S., Breitenmoser, X., Bjørneklett,
B., The risk of power loss in crystalline silicon based photovoltaic modules due to micro-cracks,
1131–1137, Copyright (2021), with permission from Elsevier) [65].

Many researches have studied the impact of microcracks on the electrical character-
istics of the module [13,65,67,68,70]. Bdour et al. [67] performed a study on the different
effects of different shapes and sizes of microcracks on the power loss of a PV system.
They estimated that the microcracks correspond to a power loss of 0.82% to 3.21% for
poly-crystalline modules and 0.55–0.9% for mono-crystalline technology. Lien et al. [71]
performed several tests indoors to represent the degradation for monofacial PV and bifacial
PV with double glass in variable environmental conditions and mechanical stress based on
the IEC 62892. For the mechanical strength test, BPV showed to be more resilient, with less
tendency to cracks and less power degradation. This result is mainly because most BPV
modules have double glass front and back layers, which improve the module’s resilience
to mechanical stress compared to the glass, EVA, cell, EVA, and back sheet structure.
The power loss caused by microcracks becomes significantly bigger when parts of the
solar cell disconnect electrically from the rest of the cell, as the generation of a PV solar cell
is directly proportional to the active area. Therefore, microcracks become a serious issue
when portions of the cell become electrically isolated. This means that there will be areas
with no current collected from the fingers to the bus bar of the cell. An inactive area of 50%
or higher can lead to a power loss of one-third of the module’s power. This happens due to
the activation of the module bypass diode, which shortcuts the portion of the PV module
with a significant crack [72], as seen in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Bypassed cells due to cracks.

Energies 2021, 14, 7935 15 of 29

The effect of microcracks on C-Si cells can be seen in Figure 15. The presence of micro
fissures on the cells can cause a reduction of the short circuit current and shunt resistance.
When the cracking of the cells is not uniform throughout the module, the I-V curve is
commonly stepped [73].

Figure 15. Microcracks degradation effect on I-V curve [73].

Strategies to overcome and reduce the occurrence of microcracks on the solar cell
have been studied at the cell, module, and system levels. At the cell level, a common
crack that occurs is when part of the effective area of the cell is lost as the crack occurs
beyond the outer busbars and the edge of the solar cell. The current from the detached
portion of the cell can not be collected by the busbars. On the other hand, when the crack
is located between two busbars, the redundancy of the busbars allow the current from
the cracked region to still be collected although an increase in the resistive losses in the
fingers is expected. Therefore, an alternative to reduce the effects of power loss caused by
microcracks is to increase the number of busbars and re-position the outer busbars closer
to the cells edge [70]. At the module level, despite the soldering strategies to reduce the
damage on the semiconductor, construction strategies such as glass-glass modules can be
used to reduce the propagation of microcracks. With this technology the cell is positioned
in a neutral point, and less likely to suffer tensile stress. At system level, maximum power
point tracking (MPPT) strategies, the use of microinverters and charge controllers can help
overcome the losses caused by under performing modules [68,70]

4.3. Potential Induced Degradation

The potential-induced degradation (PID) effect has been considered the most frequent
problem in crystalline silicon cells [8,74]. This phenomenon originates from the movement
of static electrical charge (leakage current) between the solar cell and the grounded structure
of the module due to a large potential difference [75]. This failure can cause a substantial
and rapid loss normally up to 30% of the initial power which leads to a considerable
financial impact [74,75]. Studies have shown that PID can affect both p-type and n-type
cells, although heterojunction cells seem to be more resilient to this degradation due to the
conductive transparent conducting oxide layer [75].
The difference of the electric potential between the solar cell and the module’s frame in
p-type solar cells can cause the migration of sodium ions (Na+ ). These Na+ ions diffuse into
stacking faults of the silicon lattice, reaching the semiconductor pn-junction. Consequently,
direct metallic shunt paths are created, which reduces the cell’s shunt resistance. This
reduction of the shunt resistance directly affects the fill factor (FF) of the I-V curve. In
cases where the degradation level is up to 40%, the short-circuit current and open-circuit
voltage are not affected. Although, any degradation above this value will make the short-
circuit current and open-circuit voltage drop drastically [74]. This degradation was defined
by Neymann et al. [76] as “PID of the shunting type” (PID-s). Another PID found in
p-passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC) solar cells is the “PID of the polarisation type”
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 16 of 29

(PID-p). This type of PID can increase the surface recombination by deteriorating the
normal functioning of the passivation layer. This deterioration occurs due to the negative
charge present in the AlOx present in the rear side passivation layer is canceled by the
positive charges present in the Na+ ions [77,78]. This type of degradation can drop Isc and
Voc significantly, but the decrease in FF is small [79]. Figure 16 shows the effect of PID-s
and PID-p on the front and rear side I-V curves of BPV cells.

Figure 16. PID degradation effect on I-V curve. (a) PID-s, (b) PID-p [74,80].

To generate energy from both sides of the module, bifacial cells have the rear side only
partially covered with metal contacts. Although it allows a photocurrent to be generated
from the irradiance incident on the rear side, it affects the electromagnetic shielding of
of the passivating AlOx , SiNy layers and the bulk Si [81]. As a consequence, bifacial PV
cells are more vulnerable to PID. Bifacial p-PERC cells affected by bifacial PID suffer from
shunting of the pn-junction (PID of the shunt type - PID-s) and an increase in the surface
recombination at the rear side (PID of the polarised type - PID-p) [74]. BPV modules with
double glass and EVA encapsulant are more susceptible to PID as there is an increase in
the availability of Na+ ions from the glass. The use of polyolefin encapsulants can prevent
or reduce the occurrence of PID [82]. Additionally, studies have shown that the rear side of
the bifacial cell is more affected by PID than the front side in both degradation level and
degradation rate [8,74].
Both PID-s and PID-p can be reversible. To revert the degradation effects, the cell
can be placed under a positive bias compared to the grounded frame or by increasing the
module’s temperature, which is not easily feasible in outdoor conditions. Another solution
to revert the PID-p effect on p-PERC cells is by exposing the module to light [8,74,79].
Additionally, PID can be prevented at different stages. At the cell level, increasing the re-
fractive index of the anti-reflective coat can reduce the susceptibility of PID to occur [83–85].
For modules, different materials known as “PID resistant” or “PID-free” can be used as
encapsulants, or materials such as borosilicate glass can be used in the fabrication process
to protect the module against the PID effect. At a system level, the ground can be modi-
fied/configured to make the electrical field repel the Na+ ions move away from the solar
cells [74,83].

4.4. Light Induced Degradation

The defects caused by classical impurities are widely explored and understood,
on the other hand, degradation such as light-induced degradation (LID) and light and
temperature-induced degradation (LeTID) still need attention and further studies especially
with the improvement of the cell structure using surface passivation layers [86]. These
degradations have shown to be more significant in the PERC technology. PERC technology
improved the efficiency of the existing solar cells, enabling efficiency levels of 21–24%
without a significant increase in price [87]. In PERC p-type multi-crystalline silicon cells,
the effect of LID can cause a reduction in the power output of the module at the maximum
power point (MPP) by around 10% [88,89]. This Light Induced Degradation (LID) is caused
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 17 of 29

by the natural exposition of the PV modules to solar irradiance and an excess of carrier
injection by above-bandgap illumination or forward biasing [90]. In the I-V characteristics
of the solar cell or module, LID can be seen as a reduction of the short-circuit current and
open-circuit voltage as shown in Figure 17. This behaviour in the I-V characteristic curve is
due to the increase in minority-carrier recombination in the bulk of the c-Si [90]. Despite
the extensive studies regarding LID, the actual recombination-active defects which are
responsible for causing the degradation, are still not identified.

Figure 17. I-V curve of simulated PV module with LID [91].

Researches suggest a relation between LID with certain dopants used in solar cell
fabrication. The most common defect is caused by the dopant boron and the residual traces
of oxygen present in the silicon during the formation of the silicon ingot [75]. This type
of LID is known as boron-oxygen LID (BO-LID) due to the formation of a boron-oxygen
complex [90] and occurs mainly in Czochralski Silicon (Cz-Si) cells and Float-Zone Silicon
(Fz-Si) cells [92]. The boron-oxygen molecules are generated due to the exposition of the
cell to sunlight. This effect occurs during the first few hours of light exposure at ambient
temperature and is detected by the monitoring of the system performance for the first
week after installation [75]. These boron-oxygen molecules can absorb the photo-generated
electron-hole pair, which leads to a reduction of the cell’s short-circuit current and maxi-
mum power [75]. BO-LID can be permanently deactivated by simultaneous illumination
and annealing using one sun irradiance intensity at temperature levels of 60–300 ◦ C [93].
This method can dissociate the B-O complex [94], although, as the temperature required
for the reversion process is considerably high, it is unachievable in the field. Therefore,
it makes the failure hard to recover for modules in operation. For this reason, to prevent
this degradation, the manufacturer must perform preliminary light soaking tests on the
cells/modules for the correct standard qualification according to the IEC 61215.
Another type of LID is related to the dissociation of iron-boron (FeB-LID) pairs and
is more common in multi-crystalline silicon cells (mc-Si) [92]. Under dark condition, the
positively charged atoms of iron associate with the negatively charged boron atoms. These
Fe-B complexes that are formed do not affect cell efficiency and have very narrow energy
levels. On the other hand, under illumination, there will be a shift in the Fermi level. This
shift caused the neutralisation of the iron ions and the separation of the iron atoms from
the boron atoms. The free iron atoms cause higher carrier recombination while the cell
is exposed to sunlight. Therefore, the dissociation of the Fe-B pairs causes an efficiency
loss, especially in cells with high iron contamination during the first few minutes of light
exposure [91]. More research and a better understanding of both LID and LeTID are of
extreme importance in order to potentially reduce the degradation effects caused by light or
light and temperature-induced degradation, which increase the losses and the uncertainties
regarding the performance of the system in the field.
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 18 of 29

4.5. Light and Elevate Temperature Induced Degradation

Another degradation effect caused by the exposure of the cell to light, is the Light
and elevate Temperature Degradation (LeTID). This degradation was first discovered in
2012 [95] and it causes loss in module performance when the cells are exposed to both light
and elevated temperature (>50 ◦ C) for a long period. It has been reported that LeTID does
not occur if the module operates at a temperature below 50 ◦ C or if it operates above this
temperature for a short period [75]. This degradation has been reported to appear if the
manufacturing process of the solar cell involves a high-temperature exposure followed by
an abrupt cooling [75]. Similarly to LID, LeTID affects solar cells dielectrically passivated
on the rear side (PERC) more significantly than aluminium back surface field (Al-BSF)
cells [96]. Although no method of detection and prevention has been agreed to date,
studies have shown that LeTID happens at a much slower degradation rate than what
has been experienced with LID [75]. It can take years of exposure to sunlight and elevate
temperature until the cell start showing sings of LeTID.
The origin of LeTID is still unknown, although numerous studies have suggested a
relation between high concentration of weakly bonded hydrogen in the region near the
passivation layers of the cell as a cause of LeTID [88,97,98]. The hydrogen is released
from the hydrogen rich SiNx:H (Hydrogen-Rich Silicon Nitride) layer during the rapid
thermal annealing (RTA) and its amount varies with the thickness and composition of
the layer [18,99]. Under illumination and high temperature exposure for a long period,
hydrogen atoms can bond to silicon atoms, which can give rise to a slow degradation of
the maximum power which can reach values up to 7% [75]. This degradation caused by
LeTID can be reversed naturally but sometimes not completely. The reversion process
happens when the cell is exposed to the same high-temperature condition that causes the
degradation for some time [75]. The occurrence of LeTID is independent of the dopant used
in the cell, therefore it can affect both p-type or n-type silicon cells [97]. This degradation
can take many years to recover in systems installed in field, which causes a significant loss
in the energy yield over time [100].
The studies for the effect of LeTID in BPV cells are limited. Zhang et al. [101] performed
a study to compare the effects of LeTID in MPV and BPV ms-Si cells and modules. For
bifacial PV modules, the effects of LeTID is less significant than the ones found in multi-
crystalline PERC monofacial modules. The suggested reason for the lower values of LeTID
in bifacial cells is that the bifacial rear SiNx:H layer introduces less hydrogen into the
silicon bulk compared to monofacial [101]. In his study, Zhang et al. also submitted both
monofacial and bifacial PV cells to accelerated degradation condition by using a current
injection (CID) of 3.5 A and 105 ◦ C. The results showed similar degradation for both cells
up until 4 h of exposure. After that, bifacial cells presented lower levels of degradation.
Although, the studies of the normalised defect density in the cell due to the impact of
SiNx:H on the rear side in the degradation showed a lower amount of hydrogen in bifacial
cells and a lower LeTID, even at the start within the 4 h. Therefore, it was suggested that
the similar degradation within the first 4 h may be caused by a different degradation but
not by LeTID.
At modules level, when exposed to 40 kWh/m2 , both monofacial and bifacial PV
modules had the same relative degradation of 1.3%. As the solar radiation levels increases
to 100 kWh/m2 , bifacial PV modules degradation only increase 0.1% while monofacial
increased 0.6%. More research on the effects of LeTID in bifacial PV modules is needed,
although, based on [101] it can be expected that the LeTID effects on bifacial modules will
be less significant.
The LeTID recovery process requires the exposure of the cell to high temperature
treatments. The higher the temperature, the cell is exposed to in the recovery process, the
faster is the recovery process. However, it was found that high temperature recoveries can
lead to an incomplete recovery of LeTID. Studies are still being performed to identify the
threshold between time, temperature, and LeTID recovery [92].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 19 of 29

4.6. Soiling
Also known as natural dust effect, it is caused by airborne particles of dust that deposit
on the external parts of a PV module over a period of time. These particles vary on type
and size from 1 µm to 500 µm [102]. Although soiling of the module is not standardized
as a PV module failure[72], it significantly impacts the performance of a PV system by
partially shading it. The dust particles can act as dielectrics by absorbing the irradiance, or
by changing the angle of incidence of the irradiance on the surface of the module. Both
issues result in the decrease of the total irradiance reaching the module’s surface [102]. For
monofacial modules, it has been shown that the soiling degradation can reduce the power
output from 2% to 60%. This variation depends on the time, the area with the particles
accumulation, and the cleaning strategies [103]. The soiling effect becomes a higher threat
in locations with high relative humidity, which may increase the stickiness of the soil
particles. As a result, the cleaning capacity of wind and rain will be reduced [104]. The
intensity of soiling varies for each specific location.
The solution to minimize the degradation effects caused by soiling is the application of
strategic cleaning routines [105]. However, cleaning strategies are not the only solution to
overcome soiling. Researchers have identified methods to remove the dust accumulated on
the surface of the module by using electrodynamics screens (EDS), super hydrophobic plane
(SHOP), and super hydrophilic plane (SHIP). In the EDS method, electrodes are positioned
on the solar module and provide a self-cleaning strategy by the generation of an electric
field. This method presents a 90% efficiency in less than 2 min cleaning and utilizes less
than 0.1% of the energy generated by the collectors [106]. SHOP and SHIP strategies have
the benefit of being passive cleaning methods, which means that there is no requirement
of power input. The SHOP method uses a hydrophobic coat. This method shows high
efficiency at cleaning under raining weather, although it is considered inefficient for dry
dust [107]. The SHIP method uses a nano-film of titanium oxide, chemical coating, and
nano-patterned fabrication of glass surface to create a super hydrophilic surface. This
method has the benefits included in SHOP and it can chemically break down the organic
particles of dust through a reaction with the UV light in a photocatalytic process [107]. It is
more durable than SHOP. However, it acts as a dust suspender, therefore regular washings
are still required to wash off the dust, especially in dry climates [107,108].
For bifacial, the cleaning process of the rear side is not as straight forward.
Luque et al. [109], performed an analysis comparing the degradation rate between MPV
and BPV modules in Chile by measuring the short-circuit current. It was found that the
degradation rate from soiling is much lower for BPV technology (approximately 21.6%).
The average soiling degradation rate for MPV was 0.301% whilst BPV was 0.236% on
the front side. It was observed that soiling does not have much impact on the rear side,
showing an average of 0.039%, nearly 85% lower than the front side. Bhaduri et al. [110]
compared the effects of soiling in MPV and BPV mounted at a latitude tilt angle and
vertically in Mumbai. The results showed that vertically mounted BPV modules are more
resilient to soiling effects compared to vertical MPV modules and tilted MPV and BPV
modules. The gain obtained from the vertically installed BPV module surpassed the tilted
BPV after three weeks without cleaning. The soiling degradation rate for MPV and BPV
modules mounted at a tilt are similar. For monofacial the average soiling loss rate per
day was 0.40% whilst bifacial is 0.39%. On the other hand the degradation rate for BPV
modules installed vertically was 0.02% per day.

5. Mismatch Effects
5.1. Partial Shading on the Front Side
Photovoltaic systems are highly susceptible to partial shading. As the principle of
operation of solar cells relies on the irradiance levels incident on the area, shading can cause
a significant drop in the power output. The shading can originate multiple peaks in the I-V
and P-V curves which makes maximum power point tracking more challenging [111].
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 20 of 29

In the worst case, when a PV cell that composes a PV module is shaded or partially
shaded, it can become reverse biased and start to act as a load, which will dissipate the
current coming from unshaded cells. This phenomenon can cause a considerable increase
in temperature and originate a hot spot [59]. The hot spot is originated when the reverse
built-up voltage across the shaded cell is above the breakdown voltage. This high increase
in temperature can compromise the lamination of encapsulated materials and, in worse
cases, cause permanent damage to the cell due to thermal breakdown.
It was initially believed that the power output dropped linearly as the intensity of the
shaking increased. However, researchers have found that there is a critical point where
the power drop decreases significantly [112–114]. Teo et al. found that when a PV module
is shaded by an identical partial shading pattern, the maximum power drops at a rate of
approximately 6.22% per 100 W/m2 for irradiance on the shaded modules from 1000 W/m2
to 700 W/m2 and slows down to 0.24% per 100 W/m2 from 700 W/m2 to 0 W/m2 [112].

5.2. Irradiance Non-Uniformity on the Rear Side

For bifacial PV devices, the energy gain from the rear side also brings a higher sensitiv-
ity to irradiance mismatch compared to MPV technology. This mismatch sensitivity occurs
as BPV is affected by not only the partial shading on the front side but also the irradiance
non-uniformity of the rear side of the module [18].
The non-uniformity of the irradiance in monofacial PV modules is considerably less
significant compared to bifacial devices. The current mismatch in MPV devices has to be
considerably high to cause a significant impact on the power generated by the string [115].
Although, for bifacial modules, the irradiance that reaches the rear side of the module varies
according to many factors, such as a mounting structure causing self-shading, clearance
height, pitch, tilt, and the ground albedo. As a result, this non-uniformity of the irradiance
causes a reduction of the short-circuit current of the module and shift its maximum power
point to a lower value [116].
Bifacial modules installed on a large rooftop system show a brighter bottom due to
the direct irradiance reflection from the rooftop. This brightness decreases as it approaches
the middle region of the module but it increases towards the top area due to a greater field
of view to the diffuse sky surroundings [7,116].
Zhang et al. [18] performed an experimental evaluation of the influence of the front
side partial shading and rear side non-uniformity on bifacial PV modules compared to the
mismatch effect on monofacial PV modules. The comparison was performed by analysing
the electrical and thermal variations on both technologies under a different shading ratio on
the front side. The influence of the rear-side non-uniformity was investigated by observing
the operating voltages of bifacial PV cells under certain conditions. Zhang observed that
the partial shading on the front side of a bifacial PV module can cause an increase in the
operating temperature of the cells, as the irradiance received on them is still higher than the
irradiance on a monofacial cell, even when the bypass diodes are activated. However, the
study proved that although the rear side irradiance non-uniformity can cause a significant
drop in the short-circuit current and consequently the maximum power output, it will rarely
cause issues such as reverse bias and hot spot. This is due to the equivalent non-uniformity
of the irradiance being limited and the logarithmic increased relationship between the
voltage deviation and irradiance deviation of each solar cell.

6. Discussion
This review has presented a contribution to the existing literature, which to the
authors’ best knowledge has not previously considered the effects of the degradation on
BPV modules nor performed a comparison with the degradation effects faced by monofacial
technology. Table 4 summarises the impact of each degradation on the I-V characteristic
curve of the modules and the percentage of loss for MPV and BPV technologies.
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 21 of 29

Table 4. Power losses due to degradation processes.

Effects on Electrical
Degradation MPV BPV Prevention
Characteristics
Glass-glass technology
more prone to acetic
Reduction of Isc and Imp acid trap and build up
for discoloration [73] 0.5% per year [14] Replacement of
6 to 8% of the nominal Isc increasing the likelihood EVA encapsulant by
Encapsulant discoloration Increase of Rs and
Irreversible 10 to 13% of nominal Isc for of bubbles POE and TPO
and delamination reduction of FF [73]
complete discoloration. [59] Front side losses encapsulants [64]
for delamination and 1.3–1.88% per year [16]
oxidation of metal contacts Rear side losses
0.39–0.78% per year [16]
Increase number of busbars
Reduction of Isc and Rsh
Re-position the outer
Irreversible Microcracks “Stepped” I-V curve if Directly proportional to the Directly proportional to the
busbars closer to
the degradation is active area active area
the edge of the cell [68,70].
non-uniform [73]
Glass/glass technology [70]
Degradation < 40%:
Increase Rs , Rsh
Indoors: Increase
and FF decreases,
module’s temperature[74,79]
Isc and Voc not significantly
Reverse bias the cell
PID-s affected. [73,74] 50% power loss—
compared to the
Reversible up to Degradation > 40%: under front side illumination
Normally up to 30% [74] grounded frame[74]
85% loss [74] Increase Rs , Rsh 68% power loss—
Increasing refractive index
and FF decreases, under rear side illumination [74]
of anti-reflective coat [83]
Isc and Vo c drop
Use of Borosilicate glass
significantly [73,74]
or POE or TPO encapsulants [64]
PID-p Drop Isc and Voc but
very low effect on FF. [79]
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 22 of 29

Table 4. Cont.

Effects on Electrical
Degradation MPV BPV Prevention
Characteristics
Expose the cell to
illumination and annealing
p-type Bifacial Multi-Si 1% of 1 sun
10% power loss only
Reversible LID Reduction of Isc and Voc [91] after 300 kW/m2 and temperature of 60–300 ◦ [93]
p-type [88]
exposure to outdoor light [117] Preliminary tests
at manufacturers according
to IEC 61215 [94]
Up to 7% power loss p-type
and n-type [75].
For solar radiation
up to 40 kWh/m2 , BPV
Bifacial Multi-Si 1.5% Expose the degraded
and MPV present similar
Reversible LeTID Reduction of Isc and Voc [101]. after 2000 h (8 years) cell to elevate temperature
degradation (1.3%).
exposed to hot climate [117] and high irradiance [92]
For higher radiation levels
the MPV degradation
increases faster
than BPV’s [101].
In extreme conditions: Regular cleaning
In desert conditions 0.236% per year on the front side Electrodynamic screens (EDP)
Reversible Soiling Reduction of Isc and Voc [109]
0.301% per day [110] 0.039% per year on the rear side Super hydrophobic plane (SHOP)
0.02% vertical installations [110] Super hydrophilic plane (SHIP)
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 23 of 29

The focus on the effects of UV light on the degradation of PV modules in operation

lays mainly on the degradation of the encapsulant. This degradation can lead to a reduction
of the photocurrent generated by the module due to the reduction of the transmissivity
of the encapsulant layer. According to Albadwawi et al. [16], even under extreme desert
condition, the front side of the front side of bifacial module is more prone to discoloration
than the rear side due to the exposure to a higher proportion of direct sunlight. Therefore,
it is expected that the overall module degradation due to discoloration of the encapsulant
is similar for MPV and BPV modules, as both technologies use predominantly EVA as
the encapsulant layer. Although, as BPV technology is expected to adopt mostly the
glass-glass front and back layers, it is expected that these modules may suffer more effects
from the production of acetic acid and volatile gases during the degradation of the EVA
encapsulant. These gases are more likely to accumulate and form bubbles due to the fact
that the glass layer is not as breathable as a polymer back-sheet. Alternative solutions have
been proposed by replacing EVA for Polyolefin Elastomers (POE) although this material is
at least 30% more expensive [5].
Microcracks are a severe irreversible issue for wafer-based silicon solar cells. Recently,
aiming cost reduction in the fabrication process, the thickness of the solar cell decreased
from 300 µm to less than 200 µm or less [73]. These cracks can remove more than 10% of
the effective area of the electric circuit of the module [73]. The fissures on the cell can lead
to part of the cell being disconnected electrically from the module. The losses due to micro
crack are directly proportional to the inactive area of the module. An inactive area of 50%
or more in a cell can lead to a power loss of one-third of the nominal module’s power [72].
Studies on the effects of this degradation on BPV technologies are limited, although, as the
material and thickness of MPV and BPV technologies are relatively similar [118], it can
be expected that the likelihood of microcracks are similar. The resilience to cracks relies
on the layers of the module and their resistance to mechanical stress. As BPV technology
mostly used a glass-glass interface, it is more resistant to mechanical load. However, that is
completely due to the glass layers, other than the bifacial technology itself.
PID shows a more significant impact on BPV technology. This is mainly led by
the reduced electromagnetic shielding provided by the metal contacts on the rear side.
In addition, most BPV modules use glass-glass technology which, although it provides
less shading specially on the rear side due to frame or mounting structure, increases the
concentration of Na+ originated from the glass material. PID can occur on BPV modules
simultaneously on the front and rear sides. The rear side of the BPV module showed to
be more vulnerable to PID. Experiments showed that under front side illumination, PID
can cause a power loss of up to 50%, while under rear side illumination the loss can reach
values of 68% [80].
LID and LeTID are caused by the natural exposition of the cells to solar irradiance
(LID) and solar irradiance and high temperatures (LeTID). LID and LeTID can affect MPV
more significantly than BPV. The suggested reason for the lower values of LeTID in bifacial
cells is that the bifacial rear SiNx:H layer introduces less hydrogen into the silicon bulk
compared to monofacial [101].
In operation, the modules are exposed to the effects of dust accumulation on the front
and rear surfaces. This accumulation of airborne particles is called soiling and though
it is not considered a module’s failure, it can impact significantly on the performance
of the module decreasing the power from 2–60%. The losses caused by soiling have
been shown to be lower for BPV compared to MPV even on the BPV module’s front side.
Additionally, the rear side of BPV modules is considerably less affected by soiling. In
extreme conditions [110], studies have shown that the rear of the effect of soiling is 85%
less aggressive than the front side. BPV systems are even more resilient to soiling when
installed vertically. In this conditions the degradation rate drops to 0.02% per day
Figure 18 summarizes the order of impact of different degradation types on MPV and
BPV. The figure highlights the degradation impact on the total power loss and shows it
from the highest loss (red) to lowest loss (green) for each technology in extreme conditions.
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 24 of 29

Figure 18. Degradation scale for MPV and BPV.

7. Conclusions
This review highlighted the main degradation factors that can affect the current and
voltage characteristic curve of C-Si solar cells. A comparison of the impact of degradation
of MPV and BPV modules was provided. Microcracks are a degradation that can affect
MPV and BPV similarly. As the loss is directly related to the active area of the module, this
degradation can lead to the activation of the bypass diodes, which can reduce the power
output by 33% for each bypass diode activated. MPV devices have shown to present a
higher resilience to degradation such as PID and potentially encapsulant discoloration
compared to BPV devices. PID losses can reach high values for MPV (30%) although, it can
be significantly worse for BPV, especially for the rear side (50% power loss for front side
illumination and 68% for rear side illumination). The reason being it is due to the reduced
electromagnetic shielding as the rear side is only partially covered by metal contacts.
Additionally, most BPV modules use the double glass front and rear layers with the EVA
encapsulant, which showed to be more prone to PID due to the increase of Na+ ions from
the glass. On the other hand, this double glass technology allowed BPV modules to be
more resistant to microcracks compared to MPV that use glass-back sheet. Finally, although
the degradation caused by exposure to light (LID) and to light and elevated temperature
(LeTID) are still vague, studies have shown that BPV modules are less affected by them.
For LeTID, the higher resilience of BPV is due to the SiNx : H layer in bifacial modules
that introduce less hydrogen into the silicon bulk. The LeTID losses of MPV and BPV are
similar for solar radiation levels up to 40 kWh/m2 . Above this value, the degradation on
MPV happens much faster and can reach values of 7% of power loss, while for bifacial
this degradation showed a loss of 1.5% after 2000 h of exposure to high radiation and
temperature. Additionally, BPV technology has the potential to mitigate the power loss
caused by soiling. BPV modules are more resilient to degradation caused by soiling due to
the rear side generation. This becomes even more significant for BPV modules installed
vertically. On the other hand, BPV modules are affected not only by partial shading on
the front side but also on the rear side. The rear side of the module is highly susceptible
to partial shading caused by different albedos, self-shading, and shadows, which directly
affect the short-circuit current and maximum power output of the module.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation: M.K.d.S., Methodology: M.K.d.S. and M.S.G., Formal

analysis: M.K.d.S., M.S.G. and H.C., investigation: M.K.d.S. and M.S.G., resources: M.K.d.S., M.S.G.
and H.C., writing—original draft preparation: M.K.d.S., Writing—review and editing: M.K.d.S.,
M.S.G. and H.C., visualisation: M.S.G., H.C., supervision: M.S.G. and H.C. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable No new data were created or analysed in
this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 25 of 29

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Wood Group-Clean Energy for sponsoring
the test site.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable Energy Technologies; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020.
2. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Solar Energy; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates, 2020.
3. International Energy Agency (IEA). Report IEA-PVPS T13-13:2021:Designing New Materials for photoovoltaics: Opportunities for
Lowering Cost and Increasing Performance through Advanced Material Innovations; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2021;
pp. 1–7.
4. Peláez, S.A. Bifacial Solar Panels System Design, Modeling, and Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ, USA, 2019.
5. VDMA. International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic, 11th ed.; ITRPV: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2020; p. 76.
6. Wang, L.; Liu, F.; Yu, S.; Quan, P.; Zhang, Z. The Study on Micromismatch Losses of the Bifacial PV Modules Due to the Irradiance
Nonuniformity on Its Backside Surface. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2019, 10, 135–143. [CrossRef]
7. Yusufoglu, U.A.; Pletzer, T.M.; Koduvelikulathu, L.J.; Comparotto, C.; Kopecek, R.; Kurz, H. Analysis of the annual performance
of bifacial modules and optimization methods. IEEE J. Photovol. 2015, 5, 320–328. [CrossRef]
8. Luo, W.; Khoo, Y.S.; Hacke, P.; Naumann, V.; Lausch, D.; Harvey, S.P.; Singh, J.P.; Chai, J.; Wang, Y.; Aberle, A.G.; Ramakrishna, S.
Potential-induced degradation in photovoltaic modules: A critical review. Energy Environ. Sci. 2017, 10, 43–68. [CrossRef]
9. Graefenhain, M.; Fiedler, F.; Tsanakas, I. Energy Yield Simulation Analysis of Bifacial PV Installations in the Nordic Climate.
Master’s Thesis, Dalarma University, Falun, Sweden, 2017.
10. Burnham, L.; Riley, D.; Walker, B.; Pearce, J.M. Performance of Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules on a Dual-Axis Tracker in a
High-Latitude, High-Albedo Environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Chicago, IL, USA,
16–21 June 2019; pp. 1320–1327. [CrossRef]
11. Weckend, S.; Wade, A.; Heath, G. End of Life Management Solar PV Panels; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2016; p. 100.
12. Park, N.C.; Jeong, J.S.; Kang, B.J.; Kim, D.H. Microelectronics Reliability The effect of encapsulant discoloration and delamination
on the electrical characteristics of photovoltaic module. Microelectron. Reliab. 2013, 53, 1818–1822. [CrossRef]
13. Ennemri, A.; Logerais, P.O.; Balistrou, M.; Durastanti, J.F.; Belaidi, I. Cracks in silicon photovoltaic modules: A review. J.
Optoelectron. Adv. Mater. 2019, 21, 74–92.
14. Jordan, D.C.; Kurtz, S.R. Photovoltaic degradation rates—An Analytical Review. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2013, 21, 12–29.
[CrossRef]
15. Liang, T.S.; Pravettoni, M.; Deline, C.; Stein, J.S.; Kopecek, R.; Singh, J.P.; Luo, W.; Wang, Y.; Aberle, A.G.; Khoo, Y.S. A review
of crystalline silicon bifacial photovoltaic performance characterisation and simulation. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 116–148.
[CrossRef]
16. Albadwawi, O.; Alhamadani, H.; Hassan, S.; John, J.J.; Alheloo, A.; Almheiri, A.; Alnuaimi, A. Investigation of Bifacial PV
modules degradation under desert climatic conditions. In Proceedings of the 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
(PVSC), Calgary, AB, Canada, 15 June–21 August 2020; pp. 1505–1509.
17. Wilson, K.; De Ceuster, D.; Sinton, R.A. Measuring the effect of cell mismatch on module output. In Proceedings of the IEEE 4th
World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, WCPEC-4, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 7–12 May 2006; Volume 1, pp. 916–919.
[CrossRef]
18. Zhang, Y.; Yu, Y.; Meng, F.; Liu, Z. Experimental Investigation of the Shading and Mismatch Effects on the Performance of Bifacial
Photovoltaic Modules. IEEE J. Photovol. 2020, 10, 296–305. [CrossRef]
19. Manganiello, P.; Balato, M.; Vitelli, M. A Survey on Mismatching and Aging of PV Modules: The Closed Loop. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2015, 62, 7276–7286. [CrossRef]
20. Qian, J.; Thomson, A.F.; Blakers, A.; Tokusato, E.; Ernst, M.; Hardrich, I. A PV Module Current Mismatch Simulation Model and
Application to Bifacial Modules. In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Solar Research Conference Proceedings, Canberra, Australia,
29 November–1 December 2016
21. Libal, J.; Kopecek, R. Bifacial Photovoltaics: Technology, Applications and Economics; The Institute of Engineering and Technology:
London, UK, 2019.
22. Mermoud, A.; Wittmer, B. PVsyst User’s Manual; Pvsyst SA: Satigny, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 1–102.
23. Blair, N.; Dobos, A.P.; Freeman, J.; Neises, T.; Wagner, M.; Ferguson, T.; Gilman, P.; Janzou, S. System Advisor Model, sam 2014.1. 14:
General Description; NREL Report No. TP-6A20-61019; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2014; p. 13.
[CrossRef]
24. Valentin, G. PV*SOL Expert 6.0: Design and Simulation of Photovoltaic Systems Manual; Dr. Valentin EnergieSoftware GmbH: Berlim,
Germany, 2012.
25. Wolf, M.; Rauschenbach, H. Resistance effects on solar cell measurements. Adv. Energy Convers. 1963, 3, 455–479. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 26 of 29

26. Khatib, T.; Ghareeb, A.; Tamimi, M.; Jaber, M.; Jaradat, S. A new offline method for extracting I-V characteristic curve for
photovoltaic modules using artificial neural networks. Sol. Energy 2018, 173, 462–469. [CrossRef]
27. Chan, D.; Phang, J. Analytical Methods for the Extraction of Solar-Cell Single- and Double-Diode Model Parameters from. IEEE
Trans. Electron Devices 1987, 34, 286–293. [CrossRef]
28. Villalva, M.G. Conversor Eletrônico de Potência Trifásico para Sistema Fotovoltaico Conectado à Rede Elétrica. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, 2010.
29. Bonkoungou, D.; Koalaga, Z.; Njomo, D. Modelling and Simulation of photovoltaic module considering single-diode equivalent
circuit model in MATLAB. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 2013, 3, 493–502. [CrossRef]
30. Ghani, F.; Rosengarten, G.; Duke, M. The characterisation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic devices using the manufacturer
supplied data. Sol. Energy 2016, 132, 15–24. [CrossRef]
31. Bouchakour, S.; Valencia-caballero, D.; Luna, A.; Roman, E.; Amin, E.; Boudjelthia, K.; Rodr, P. Modelling and Simulation of
Bifacial PV Production Using Monofacial Electrical Models. Energies 2021, 14, 4224. [CrossRef]
32. Prakash, J.; Aberle, A.G.; Walsh, T.M. Electrical characterization method for bifacial photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 2014, 127, 136–142. [CrossRef]
33. Shoukry, I.; Libal, J.; Kopecek, R.; Wefringhaus, E.; Werner, J. Modelling of Bifacial Gain for Stand-alone and in-field Installed
Bifacial PV Modules. Energy Procedia 2016, 92, 600–608. [CrossRef]
34. El-Ahmar, M.H.; El-Sayed, A.H.M.; Hemeida, A.M. Mathematical Modeling of Photovoltaic Module and Evalute the Effect
of Varoius Paramenters on its Performance. In Proceedings of the 2016 Eighteenth International Middle East Power Systems
Conference (MEPCON), Cairo, Egypt, 27–29 December 2016; pp. 741–746. [CrossRef]
35. Campos, R.E. Desenvolvimento e Construcao de um Prototipo de Tracador Eletronico de Curva I-V Para a Analise de Modulos e
Strings Fotovoltaicos. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, 2019.
36. Dhass, A.D.; Natarajan, E.; Ponnusamy, L. Influence of shunt resistance on the performance of solar photovoltaic cell. In Proceed-
ings of the ICETEEEM 2012, International Conference on Emerging Trends in Electrical Engineering and Energy Management,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, 13–15 December 2012; pp. 382–386. [CrossRef]
37. Chegaar, M.; Hamzaoui, A.; Namoda, A.; Petit, P.; Aillerie, M.; Herguth, A. Effect of illumination intensity on solar cells
parameters. Energy Procedia 2013, 36, 722–729. [CrossRef]
38. Kassis, A.; Saad, M. Analysis of multi-crystalline silicon solar cells at low illumination levels using a modified two-diode model.
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2010, 94, 2108–2112. [CrossRef]
39. Khan, F.; Singh, S.N.; Husain, M. Effect of illumination intensity on cell parameters of a silicon solar cell. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 2010, 94, 1473–1476. [CrossRef]
40. Priyanka; Lal, M.; Singh, S.N. A new method of determination of series and shunt resistances of silicon solar cells. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 2007, 91, 137–142. [CrossRef]
41. Schmid, A.; Dülger, G.; Baraah, G.; Kräling, U.; Ise, F. IV Measurement of Bifacial Modules: Bifacial vs. Monofacial Illumination.
In Proceedings of the 33rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25–29
September 2017; pp. 1624–1627.
42. Deline, C.; Pelaez, S.A.; Macalpine, S.; Olalla, C.; Deline, C.; Pelaez, S.A.; Macalpine, S.; Olalla, C. Bifacial PV System Mismatch Loss
Estimation and Parameterization; BifiPV Workshop: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; p. 74831.
43. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC TS 60904-1-2 Ed.1 Photovoltaic Devices—Part 1-2. Measurement of Current-
Voltage Characteristics of Bifacial Photovoltaic (PV) Devices; IEC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
44. Amelia, A.R.; Irwan, Y.M.; Leow, W.Z.; Irwanto, M.; Safwati, I.; Zhafarina, M. Investigation of the effect temperature on
photovoltaic (PV) panel output performance. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2016, 6, 682–688. [CrossRef]
45. El Achouby, H.; Zaimi, M.; Ibral, A.; Assaid, E.M. New analytical approach for modelling effects of temperature and irradiance
on physical parameters of photovoltaic solar module. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 177, 258–271. [CrossRef]
46. Chin, V.J.; Salam, Z.; Ishaque, K. Cell modelling and model parameters estimation techniques for photovoltaic simulator
application: A review. Appl. Energy 2015, 154, 500–519. [CrossRef]
47. Shongwe, S.; Hanif, M. Comparative Analysis of Different Single-Diode PV Modeling Methods. IEEE J. Photovol. 2015, 5, 938–946.
[CrossRef]
48. Ismail, M.S.; Moghavvemi, M.; Mahlia, T.M. Characterization of PV panel and global optimization of its model parameters using
genetic algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 73, 10–25. [CrossRef]
49. Chander, S.; Purohit, A.; Sharma, A.; Arvind; Nehra, S.P.; Dhaka, M.S. A study on photovoltaic parameters of mono-crystalline
silicon solar cell with cell temperature. Energy Rep. 2015, 1, 104–109. [CrossRef]
50. Ibrahim, H.; Anani, N. Variations of PV module parameters with irradiance and temperature. Energy Procedia 2017, 134, 276–285.
[CrossRef]
51. Baloch, A.A.; Hammat, S.; Figgis, B.; Alharbi, F.H.; Tabet, N. In-field characterization of key performance parameters for bifacial
photovoltaic installation in a desert climate. Renew. Energy 2020, 159, 50–63. [CrossRef]
52. Lamers, M.W.; Özkalay, E.; Gali, R.S.; Janssen, G.J.; Weeber, A.W.; Romijn, I.G.; Van Aken, B.B. Temperature effects of bifacial
modules: Hotter or cooler? Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 185, 192–197. [CrossRef]
53. Hezel, R. Novel Applications of Bifacial Solar Cells. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2003, 11, 549–556. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 27 of 29

54. Kenny, R.P.; Menendez, E.G.; Lopez-Garcia, J.; Haile, B. Characterizing the operating conditions of bifacial modules. AIP Conf.
Proc. 2018, 1999, 020014. [CrossRef]
55. King, D.L.; Quintana, M.A.; Kratochvil, J.A.; Ellibee, D.E.; Hansen, B.R. Photovoltaic module performance and durability
following long-term field exposure. AIP Conf. Proc. 2009, 462, 565–571. [CrossRef]
56. Mohan, B.V.G.; Mayandi, J.; Pearce, J.M.; Muniasamy, K.; Veerapandy, V. Demonstration of a simple encapsulation technique for
prototype silicon solar cells. Mater. Lett. 2020, 274, 128028. [CrossRef]
57. Sinha, A.; Sastry, O.S.; Gupta, R. Nondestructive characterization of encapsulant discoloration effects in crystalline-silicon PV
modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016, 155, 234–242. [CrossRef]
58. Oreski, G.; Wallner, G.M. Evaluation of the aging behavior of ethylene copolymer films for solar applications under accelerated
weathering conditions. Sol. Energy 2009, 83, 1040–1047. [CrossRef]
59. Kim, C.; Jeong, M.S.; Ko, J.; Ko, M.G.; Kang, M.G.; Song, H.J. Inhomogeneous rear reflector induced hot-spot risk and power loss
in building-integrated bifacial c-Si photovoltaic modules. Renew. Energy 2021, 163, 825–835. [CrossRef]
60. Chattopadhyay, S.; Dubey, R.; Kuthanazhi, V.; John, J.J.; Solanki, C.S.; Kottantharayil, A.; Arora, B.M.; Narasimhan, K.L.; Kuber, V.;
Vasi, J.; et al. Visual degradation in field-aged crystalline silicon PV modules in India and correlation with electrical degradation.
IEEE J. Photovol. 2014, 4, 1470–1476. [CrossRef]
61. Realini, A.; Cereghetti, N.; Chianese, D. Mean Time Before Failure of Photovoltaic Modules; Swiss Federal Office of Energy: Canobbio,
Switzerland, 2002.
62. Sinha, A.; Hurst, K.; Ulicna, S.; Schelhas, L.T.; Miller, D.C.; Hacke, P. Assessing UV-Induced Degradation in Bifacial Modules of
Different Cell Technologies. In Proceedings of the 48th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA,
20–25 June 2021; pp. 0767–0770. [CrossRef]
63. Sinha, A.; Sulas-Kern, D.; Owen-Bellini2, M.; Spinella, L.; Ulicna, S.; Ayala Pelaez, S.; Johnston, S.; Schelhas, L. Glass/Glass
Photovoltaic Module Reliability and Degradation: A Review Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys.
2021, 41. [CrossRef]
64. Camino, B. Designing New Materials for Photocathodes. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London,
London, UK, 2017.
65. Köntges, M.; Kunze, I.; Kajari-Schröder, S.; Breitenmoser, X.; Bjørneklett, B. The risk of power loss in crystalline silicon based
photovoltaic modules due to micro-cracks. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2011, 95, 1131–1137. [CrossRef]
66. Spataru, S.; Hacke, P.; Sera, D. Automatic Detection and Evaluation of Solar Cell Micro-Cracks in Electroluminescence Images
Using Matched Filters. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Portland, OR, USA,
5–10 June 2016; pp. 1602–1607. [CrossRef]
67. Bdour, M.; Dalala, Z.; Al-Addous, M.; Radaideh, A.; Al-Sadi, A. A Comprehensive Evaluation on Types of Microcracks and
Possible Effects on Power Degradation in Photovoltaic Solar Panels. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6416. [CrossRef]
68. Papargyri, L.; Theristis, M.; Kubicek, B.; Krametz, T.; Mayr, C.; Papanastasiou, P.; Georghiou, G.E. Modelling and experimental
investigations of microcracks in crystalline silicon photovoltaics: A review. Renew. Energy 2019, 145, 2387–2408. [CrossRef]
69. Wen, T.K.; Yin, C.C. Crack detection in photovoltaic cells by interferometric analysis of electronic speckle patterns. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 2012, 98, 216–223. [CrossRef]
70. Gabor, A.M.; Janoch, R.; Anselmo, A.; Field, H. Solar Panel Design Factors to Reduce the Impact of Cracked Cells and the Tendency for
Crack Propagation; NREL PV Module Reliability Workshop: Denver, CO, USA, 2015; pp. 1–11.
71. Lien, C.; Yang, W.L.; Lu, K.W.; Ting, S.Y.; Chen, S.H.; Hsieh, C.F.; Tsai, C.C.; Wu, H.S.; Wu, T.C. The Comparative Study in the
Performance of Bifacial and Monofacial c-Si Photovoltaic Modules under the Specific Sequential Tests. In Proceedings of the
2018 IEEE 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, WCPEC 2018-A Joint Conference of 45th IEEE PVSC, 28th
PVSEC and 34th EU PVSEC, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 10–15 June 2018; pp. 1305–1308. [CrossRef]
72. Köntges, M.; Kurtz, S.; Packard, C.; Jahn, U.; Berger, K.; Kato, K.; Friesen, T.; Liu, H.; Van Iseghem, M. Review of Failures of
Photovoltaic Modules; Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2014; pp. 1–140.
73. Ahmad, J.; Ciocia, A.; Fichera, S.; Murtaza, A.F.; Spertino, F. Detection of typical defects in silicon photovoltaic modules and
application for plants with distributed MPPT configuration. Energies 2019, 12, 4547. [CrossRef]
74. Carolus, J.; Tsanakas, J.A.; van der Heide, A.; Voroshazi, E.; De Ceuninck, W.; Daenen, M. Physics of potential-induced
degradation in bifacial p-PERC solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 200, 109950. [CrossRef]
75. Pravettoni, M. Module Deployment and Energy Rating; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020;
Volume 301, pp. 249–283. [CrossRef]
76. Naumann, V.; Lausch, D.; Hähnel, A.; Bauer, J.; Breitenstein, O.; Graff, A.; Werner, M.; Swatek, S.; Großer, S.; Bagdahn, J.;
Hagendorf, C. Explanation of potential-induced degradation of the shunting type by Na decoration of stacking faults in Si solar
cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2014, 120, 383–389. [CrossRef]
77. Halm, A.; Schneider, A.; Mihailetchi, V.D.; Koduvelikulathu, L.J.; Popescu, L.M.; Galbiati, G.; Chu, H.; Kopecek, R. Potential-
induced Degradation for Encapsulated n-type IBC Solar Cells with Front Floating Emitter. Energy Procedia 2015, 77, 356–363.
[CrossRef]
78. Green, M.A. The Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell (PERC): From conception to mass production. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
2015, 143, 190–197. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 28 of 29

79. Luo, W.; Hacke, P.; Terwilliger, K.; Liang, T.S.; Wang, Y.; Ramakrishna, S.; Aberle, A.G.; Khoo, Y.S. Elucidating potential-induced
degradation in bifacial PERC silicon photovoltaic modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2018, 26, 859–867. [CrossRef]
80. Carolus, J.; Breugelmans, R.; Tsanakas, J.A.; van der Heide, A.; Voroshazi, E.; De Ceuninck, W.; Daenen, M. Why and how to
adapt PID testing for bifacial PV modules? Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2020, 28, 1045–1053. [CrossRef]
81. Sporleder, K.; Turek, M.; Schüler, N.; Naumann, V.; Hevisov, D.; Pöblau, C.; Großer, S.; Schulte-Huxel, H.; Bauer, J.; Hagendorf, C.
Quick test for reversible and irreversible PID of bifacial PERC solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2021, 219. [CrossRef]
82. Stein, J.S.; Reise, C.; Castro, J.B.; Friesen, G.; Maugeri, G.; Urrejola, E.; Ranta, S. Bifacial PV modules and systems Experience and
Results from International Research and Pilot Applications. Report IEA-PVPS T13-14:2021; Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme;
International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2021; pp. 1–168.
83. Pingel, S.; Frank, O.; Winkler, M.; Oaryan, S.; Geipel, T.; Hoehne, H.; Berghold, J. Potential induced degradation of solar cells and
panels. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 20–25 June 2010; pp. 2817–2822.
84. Koch, S.; Nieschalk, D.; Berghold, J.; Wendlandt, S.; Krauter, S.; Grunow, P. Potential induced degradation effects on crystalline
silicon cells with various antireflective coatings. In Proceedings of the 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and
Exhibition, Frankfurt, Germany, 24–28 September 2012; pp. 1985–1990.
85. Janssen, G.J.; Stodolny, M.K.; Van Aken, B.B.; Loffler, J.; Lamers, M.W.; Tool, K.J.; Romijn, I.G. Minimizing the Polarization-Type
Potential-Induced Degradation in PV Modules by Modification of the Dielectric Antireflection and Passivation Stack. IEEE J.
Photovol. 2019, 9, 608–614. [CrossRef]
86. Wilson, G.M.; Al-Jassim, M.; Metzger, W.K.; Glunz, S.W.; Verlinden, P.; Xiong, G.; Mansfield, L.M.; Stanbery, B.J.; Zhu, K.; Yan, Y.;
et al. The 2020 photovoltaic technologies roadmap. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2020, 53. [CrossRef]
87. Lin, D.; Hu, Z.; He, Q.; Yang, D.; Song, L.; Yu, X. New insights on LeTID/BO-LID in p-type mono-crystalline silicon. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 2021, 226, 111085. [CrossRef]
88. Nakayashiki, K.; Hofstetter, J.; Morishige, A.E.; Li, T.T.A.; Needleman, D.B.; Jensen, M.A.; Buonassisi, T. Engineering Solutions
and Root-Cause Analysis for Light-Induced Degradation in p-Type Multicrystalline Silicon PERC Modules. IEEE J. Photovol.
2016, 6, 860–868. [CrossRef]
89. Kraus, K.; Brand, A.A.; Fertig, F.; Rein, S.; Nekarda, J. Fast regeneration processes to avoid light-induced degradation in
multicrystalline silicon solar cells. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference, PVSC 2017,
Washington, DC, USA, 25–30 June 2017; Volume 6, pp. 1–3. [CrossRef]
90. Lindroos, J.; Savin, H. Review of light-induced degradation in crystalline silicon solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016,
147, 115–126. [CrossRef]
91. Luka, T.; Hagendorf, C.; Turek, M. Multicrystalline PERC solar cells: Is light-induced degradation challenging the efficiency gain
of rear passivation? Photovolt. Int. 2016, 32, 37–44.
92. Herguth, A.; Derricks, C.; Keller, P.; Terheiden, B. Recovery of LeTID by low intensity illumination: Reaction kinetics, completeness
and threshold temperature. Energy Procedia 2017, 124, 740–744. [CrossRef]
93. Herguth, A.; Schubert, G.; Kaes, M.; Hahn, G. Investigations on the long time behavious of the metastable Boron-Oxygen complex
in crystalline silicon. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2007, 20, 1114–1129. [CrossRef]
94. Sopori, B.; Basnyat, P.; Devayajanam, S.; Shet, S.; Mehta, V.; Binns, J.; Appel, J. Understanding light-induced degradation of
c-Si solar cells. In Proceedings of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 3–8 June 2012; pp. 1115–1120.
[CrossRef]
95. Ramspeck, K.; Zimmermann, S.; Nagel, H.; Metz, A.; Gassenbauer, Y.; Birkmann, B.; Seidl, A. Light Induced Degradation of
Rear Passivated mc-Si Solar Cells. In Proceedings of the 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition,
Frankfurt, Germany, 24–28 September 2012; pp. 861–865. [CrossRef]
96. Kersten, F.; Fertig, F.; Petter, K.; Klöter, B.; Herzog, E.; Strobel, M.; Heitmann, J.; Müller, J. Performance Loss Induced by LeTID
in the Field. In Proceedings of the 33rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25–29
September 2017; pp. 1418–1421. [CrossRef]
97. Chen, D.; Hamer, P.; Kim, M.; Chan, C.; Ciesla nee Wenham, A.; Rougieux, F.; Zhang, Y.; Abbott, M.; Hallam, B. Hydrogen-induced
degradation: Explaining the mechanism behind light- and elevated temperature-induced degradation in n- and p-type silicon.
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2020, 207, 110353. [CrossRef]
98. Inglese, A.; Focareta, A.; Schindler, F.; Schön, J.; Lindroos, J.; Schubert, M.C.; Savin, H. Light-induced Degradation in Multicrys-
talline Silicon: The Role of Copper. Energy Procedia 2016, 92, 808–814. [CrossRef]
99. Bredemeier, D.; Walter, D.C.; Heller, R.; Schmidt, J. Impact of Hydrogen-Rich Silicon Nitride Material Properties on Light-Induced
Lifetime Degradation in Multicrystalline Silicon. Phys. Status Solidi Rapid Res. Lett. 2019, 13, 1–5. [CrossRef]
100. Jensen, M.A.; Zuschlag, A.; Wieghold, S.; Skorka, D.; Morishige, A.E.; Hahn, G.; Buonassisi, T. Evaluating root cause: The
distinct roles of hydrogen and firing in activating light-and elevated temperature-induced degradation. J. Appl. Phys. 2018, 124.
[CrossRef]
101. Zhang, D.; Wu, J. Comparison of Letid in Monofacial and Bifacial Multicrystalline PERC cells and modules. In Proceedings of
the 37th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Lisbon, Portugal, 7–11 September 2020.
102. Urrejola, E.; Antonanzas, J.; Ayala, P.; Salgado, M.; Ramírez-Sagner, G.; Cortés, C.; Pino, A.; Escobar, R. Effect of soiling and
sunlight exposure on the performance ratio of photovoltaic technologies in Santiago, Chile. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016,
114, 338–347. [CrossRef]
Energies 2021, 14, 7935 29 of 29

103. Hoffman, A.R.; Maag, C.R. Photovoltaic Module Soiling Studies May 1978–October 1980; May 1978–October 1980 DOE/JPL-1012-49;
Jet Propulsion Laboratory: La Cañada Flintridge, CA, USA, 1980.
104. Guo, B.; Javed, W.; Figgis, B.W.; Mirza, T. Effect of dust and weather conditions on photovoltaic performance in Doha, Qatar.
In Proceedings of the 2015 1st Workshop on Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, SGRE 2015, Doha, Qatar, 22–23 March 2015.
[CrossRef]
105. Maghami, M.R.; Hizam, H.; Gomes, C.; Radzi, M.A.; Rezadad, M.I.; Hajighorbani, S. Power loss due to soiling on solar panel: A
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1307–1316. [CrossRef]
106. Mazumder, M.; Horenstein, M.N.; Stark, J.W.; Girouard, P.; Sumner, R.; Henderson, B.; Sadder, O.; Hidetaka, I.; Biris, A.S.; Sharma,
R. Characterization of electrodynamic screen performance for dust removal from solar panels and solar hydrogen generators.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2013, 49, 1793–1800. [CrossRef]
107. Deb, D.; Brahmbhatt, N.L. Review of yield increase of solar panels through soiling prevention, and a proposed water-free
automated cleaning solution. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3306–3313. [CrossRef]
108. He, G.; Zhou, C.; Li, Z. Review of self-cleaning method for solar cell array. Procedia Eng. 2011, 16, 640–645. [CrossRef]
109. Luque, E.G.; Antonanzas-Torres, F.; Escobar, R. Effect of soiling in bifacial PV modules and cleaning schedule optimization.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 174, 615–625. [CrossRef]
110. Bhaduri, S.; Kottantharayil, A. Mitigation of Soiling by Vertical Mounting of Bifacial Modules. IEEE J. Photovol. 2019, 9, 240–244.
[CrossRef]
111. Salem, F.; Awadallah, M.A. Detection and assessment of partial shading in photovoltaic arrays. J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2016,
3, 23–32. [CrossRef]
112. Teo, J.C.; Tan, R.H.; Mok, V.H.; Ramachandaramurthy, V.K.; Tan, C. Impact of partial shading on the P-V characteristics and the
maximum power of a photovoltaic string. Energies 2018, 11, 1860. [CrossRef]
113. Silvestre, S.; Boronat, A.; Chouder, A. Study of bypass diodes configuration on PV modules. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 1632–1640.
[CrossRef]
114. Abdulazeez, M.; Iskender, I. Simulation and experimental study of shading effect on series and parallel connected photovoltaic
PV modules. In Proceedings of the ELECO 2011—7th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Bursa,
Turkey, 1–4 December 2011; pp. 28–32.
115. Riley, D.; Hansen, C.; Stein, J.; Lave, M.; Kallickal, J.; Marion, B.; Toor, F. A Performance Model for Bifacial PV Modules. In
Proceedings of the 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), Washington, DC, USA, 25–30 June 2018; pp. 3348–3353.
[CrossRef]
116. Deline, C.; Ayala Pelaez, S.; MacAlpine, S.; Olalla, C. Estimating and parameterizing mismatch power loss in bifacial photovoltaic
systems. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2020, 28, 691–703. [CrossRef]
117. Wu, J.; Wu, H.; Chen, X.; Yao, Z.; Zhang, D.; Su, S.; Zhang, M.; Jiang, F.; Xing, G. 21.4% efficiency bifacial multi-Si PERC
cells and 410W modules. In Proceedings of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 16–21 June 2019;
pp. 1466–1470. [CrossRef]
118. Pan, A.; Canizo, C.; Luque, A. Effect of Thickness on Short-circuit Current of Silicon Solar Cells. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 2007,
ED-12, 470–474. [CrossRef]