Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence

Correction: Balancing electrical and optical losses for efficient 4-terminal Si-perovskite solar cells with solution processed percolation electrodes

César Omar Ramírez Quiroz *a, Yilei Shen a, Michael Salvador ab, Karen Forberich a, Nadine Schrenker c, George D. Spyropoulos a, Thomas Heumüller a, Benjamin Wilkinson d, Thomas Kirchartz ef, Erdmann Spiecker c, Pierre J. Verlinden g, Xueling Zhang g, Martin A. Green d, Anita Ho-Baillie d and Christoph J. Brabec *ah
aFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute of Materials for Electronics and Energy Technology (I-MEET), Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Erlangen, Germany. E-mail: omar.quiroz@fau.de
bKaust Solar Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Saudi Arabia
cCenter for Nanoanalysis and Electron Microscopy (CENEM), Department Werkstoffwissenschaften, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Cauerstraße 6, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
dThe Australian Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics (ACAP), School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
eIEK-5 Photovoltaik, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52428 Jülich, Germany
fFaculty of Engineering, CENIDE, University of Duisburg-Essen, Carl-Benz-Straße 199, 47057 Duisburg, Germany
gTrina Solar, No. 2 Trina Road, Trina PV Industrial Park, Xinbei District, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213031, China
hFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavarian Center for Applied Energy Research (ZAE Bayern), Erlangen, Germany

Received 14th March 2018 , Accepted 14th March 2018

First published on 15th May 2018


Abstract

Correction for ‘Balancing electrical and optical losses for efficient 4-terminal Si-perovskite solar cells with solution processed percolation electrodes’ by César Omar Ramírez Quiroz et al., J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 3583–3592.


The authors regret inconsistent labelling of the Jsc column in Table 1 of the original manuscript. The experimental conditions are now described correctly in the caption of the updated Table 1, shown below, as indicated by superscripts “b” and “c”.
Table 1 Key metrics of best performing devicesa
HTL ETL/electrode J sc (mA cm−2) V oc (V) FF (%) PCEs
a All values derived from JV and EQE characterization represent the best performing devices from the same experimental run comprising 12 cells per experiment. b J sc and PCE values determined under AM 1.5 irradiation at 0.1 W cm−2 intensity. c J sc (EQE corrected) and PCE values determined under AM 1.5 irradiation at 0.1 W cm−2 intensity. d Measured efficiency when implementing 165 nm of MgF2 as antireflective (see Fig. S13).
CuSCN PC60BM–ZnO:Al/Agb 22.5 1.101 81.1 20.1
PEDOT:PSS PC60BM–ZnO:Al/Agb 19.4 0.901 80.2 14.0
CuSCN PC60BM–ZnO:Al/AgNWb 21.0 1.098 74.1 17.1
PEDOT:PSS PC60BM–ZnO:Al/AgNWb 18.2 0.902 74.5 12.1
PERL (bare)c 41.5 0.680 79.5 22.4
PERL filtered w/CuSCN cellc 17.7 0.674 80.1 9.6
PERL filtered w/PEDOT:PSS cellc 16.0 0.673 80.1 8.6
4-Terminal tandem PERL; CusCN-based 26.7/26.9d
4-Terminal tandem PERL; PEDOT-based 20.9
IBC (bare)c 41.3 0.651 75.1 20.2
IBC filtered w/CuSCN cellc 17.0 0.633 75.2 8.1
IBC filtered w/PEDOT:PSS cellc 15.2 0.634 75.2 7.3
4-Terminal tandem IBC; CusCN-based 25.2
4-Terminal tandem IBC; PEDOT-based 19.5


The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.