We study the effects of modifying indium tin oxide electrodes with ultrathin titania (TiO2) layers grown via plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition (PE-ALD). We find an optimal thickness of PE-ALD-grown titania by tracking performance, which initially increases, peaks, and eventually decreases with increasing TiO2 thickness. We use scanning Kelvin probe microscopy (SKPM) to measure both the local work function and its distribution as a function of TiO2 thickness. We find that the variance in contact potential difference across the surface of the film is related to either the amorphous or anatase TiO2 form. Finally, we use local SKPM recombination rate experiments, supported by bulk transient photovoltage and charge extraction measurements. We show that the optimum TiO2 thickness is the one for which the carrier lifetime is the longest and the charge carrier density is the highest, when the TiO2 is amorphous, in agreement with the device measurements.

Recent analyses have indicated that organic photovoltaics (OPVs) could realize the lowest overall environmental impact and fastest energy payback time among both existing and emerging solar cell technologies.1 Record efficiencies for organic solar cells now reach power conversion efficiencies (PCEs) as high as 11.7% and 11.5% for single2 and triple3 junction devices, respectively. These record devices have been achieved in inverted bulk heterojunction (BHJ) configurations where the electrons are extracted through a bottom electrode made of modified transparent conducting oxide (TCO), and the holes through a top electrode made of a high work function metal (gold or silver). These inverted device structures are also more stable than standard devices for several reasons, including elimination of both acidic poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), which can slowly degrade the TCO and the top electrodes made of a low work function metal (such as aluminum) that can easily oxidize.4–7 The issue of long-term stability remains an important challenge in the field of emerging thin-film PV materials to compete with conventional inorganic-based technologies in long-term applications.8 

Inverted OPV device structures commonly adopt interlayers to modify the transparent conducting oxide in order to alter the work function of the TCO and improve the selectivity of charge extraction (CE). In this regard, zinc oxide (ZnO) and titania (TiO2) layers are among the most promising interfacial layers to lower the work function of the TCO, such as indium tin oxide (ITO).7 However, the properties and performance of such interlayers can be sensitive to film thickness and growth methods.

Plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition (PE-ALD) is an interesting method for growing conformal, pinhole-free interlayer films of tailored composition and carefully controlled thickness.9–15 Here, we investigate the device physics of ITO electrodes modified with ultra-thin TiO2 films deposited by PE-ALD. We show that the performance of BHJ solar cells based on blends of the polymer poly[N-9′-heptadecanyl-2,7-carbazole-alt-5,5–(4′,7′-di-2-thienyl-2′,1′,3′-benzothiadiazole)] (PCDTBT) and the fullerene derivative [6,6]-phenyl C71-butyric acid methyl ester (PC71BM) depend on the TiO2 layer thickness. We chose PCDTBT as a model p-type semiconducting polymer, because it is often used as a model of newer donor/acceptor polymers with high open-circuit voltages16–19 and has achieved reasonable efficiencies (from 3.6% to 7.5% after device optimization), due to high open-circuit voltages (VOC) and good device stability.20,21

We grew TiO2 layers on cleaned glass/ITO substrates by using PE-ALD to obtain varying thickness (1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 nm) using protocols previously described by Kim et al.22 We completed the OPV devices by spin-coating the active layer (45 μl/cm2 at 5000 rpm for 120 s) from a PCDTBT:PC71BM solution (1:4 weight ratio) and by drying the films at 70 °C for 20 min leading to an 80-nm-thick active layer (see Ref. 23 for details). Finally, we deposited the top (hole-collecting) contacts of molybdenum-(VI) oxide (10 nm) and silver (100 nm) by thermal evaporation. We performed the entire fabrication process in a nitrogen filled glovebox (O2 and H2O levels < 10 ppm).

Fig. 1 presents the performance of solar cells fabricated on bare ITO and ITO modified with different thicknesses of TiO2 layer. Using only 1 nm of TiO2 increases the VOC to 0.83 V compared to 0.66 V for devices made with bare ITO. The VOC then plateaus around 0.88–0.89 V between 3 and 7 nm of TiO2. We note these values compare with the highest VOC's reported in the literature for these carbazole-based devices.20,21 However, when we increase the titania interlayer thickness further, the VOC then dramatically drops to 0.39 V for devices with 10-nm-thick TiO2 interlayers. We observe a similar trend for the fill-factor (FF), obtaining a maximum of 58% for 5-nm-thick TiO2. The short-circuit current densities (JSC) follow the same trend, but the drop is less pronounced for 10-nm-thick TiO2. We thus measured the highest PCEs for 3- and 5-nm-thick TiO2 while we measured the lowest PCE for the 10-nm-thick TiO2 device, with the main loss in PCE due to the substantial decrease in VOC. We note that the JSC values of our devices fabricated on ultra-thin titania are around 20% lower compared to champion PCDTBT-based devices; however,21,24,25 since our values were within the range of published values,7,20,26,27 and since the purpose of this study was to compare relative changes in device performance with changes in interlayer properties, we did not pursue other optimizations such as solvent additives,28 solvent mixtures,29 or use of tailored optical interference.30 

FIG. 1.

Top: molecular structures of PCDTBT and PC71BM. Bottom graphs: characteristic properties of PCDTBT:PC71BM solar cells as a function of TiO2 thickness obtained under simulated AM 1.5 solar irradiation calibrated at 100 mW/cm2: (a) Voc (open-circuit voltage), (b) FF (fill-factor), (c) Jsc (short-circuit current density), and (d) PCE (power conversion efficiency). The labels associated to each data point are related to the Y-axis.

FIG. 1.

Top: molecular structures of PCDTBT and PC71BM. Bottom graphs: characteristic properties of PCDTBT:PC71BM solar cells as a function of TiO2 thickness obtained under simulated AM 1.5 solar irradiation calibrated at 100 mW/cm2: (a) Voc (open-circuit voltage), (b) FF (fill-factor), (c) Jsc (short-circuit current density), and (d) PCE (power conversion efficiency). The labels associated to each data point are related to the Y-axis.

Close modal

To better understand these variations in device performance with varying titania interlayer thickness, we characterized bare ITO/TiO2 electrodes using scanning Kelvin probe microscopy (SKPM) (see Ref. 31 for details). This high-resolution technique simultaneously measures the topography and work function difference (ΔΦ) between a metal-coated AFM tip and the sample,32 also called the contact potential difference (CPD = ΔΦ = ΦAFM tip − Φsample). Fig. 2 (top row) exhibits uniform and smooth topography for each ITO sample modified with 1, 3, and 10 nm thick TiO2, with root-mean-square (RMS) roughness of 379, 328, and 315 pm, respectively. The corresponding CPD images are shown in Fig. 2 (bottom row). We find an overall increase in CPD with increasing TiO2 thickness progressing from 236 mV for a 3-nm-thick titania layer to 304 mV for a 10-nm-thick titania layer, indicating a shallower Φ for thicker TiO2 layers.

FIG. 2.

AFM images of ITO coated with 3-nm (a), (d), 5-nm (b), (e), and 10-nm (c), (f) thick TiO2. (a)–(c): Topography images obtained in intermittent contact mode, (d)–(f): contact potential difference images obtained during a 20 nm lift pass above the surface by amplitude modulated Kelvin probe microscopy.

FIG. 2.

AFM images of ITO coated with 3-nm (a), (d), 5-nm (b), (e), and 10-nm (c), (f) thick TiO2. (a)–(c): Topography images obtained in intermittent contact mode, (d)–(f): contact potential difference images obtained during a 20 nm lift pass above the surface by amplitude modulated Kelvin probe microscopy.

Close modal

Fig. 3 shows the CPD distributions from the CPD images in Fig. 2. We fit the distributions with Gaussian profiles to obtain the mean CPD and half-width values. Since SKPM only provides a relative work function, we use the work function value from recent ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy (UPS) measurements22 on samples prepared under identical conditions using the same equipment, to assign a reference value of Φ = 3.7 eV to the ITO coated with 3 nm of TiO2. By using the mean values from Fig. 3, we can determine the Φ values for 3-, 5-, and 10-nm-thick TiO2 to be ∼3.70,22 ∼3.66, and ∼3.63 eV, respectively. The half widths of each were 4.7, 4.5, and 8.5 mV. Notably, the 10 nm thick TiO2 electrode also exhibits the broadest distribution of Φ values, which is directly associated with increased spatial heterogeneity in the CPD. It has been previously shown that ALD deposited TiO2 films remain amorphous until 5 nm thick, after which a transition occurs between 7 and 8 nm of thickness, and become predominantly anatase at 10 nm.22,33 High-resolution conductive AFM measurements also reveal local high conductivity spots in such crystalline films.22 Our results indicate that these changes also lead to a larger variance in CPD across the surface of the 10-nm-thick TiO2 films. Since the work function decreased monotonically with increasing TiO2 thickness, the work function alone cannot explain this large drop in device performance we observed as the film thickness is increased past 5–7 nm. We suspected that this change was associated with changes in interfacial recombination kinetics upon the transition from amorphous to anatase TiO2.

FIG. 3.

Contact potential distributions obtained from the Kelvin probe images of Fig. 2. The black curves are fits with Gaussian profiles. The (mean ± half width) of the distributions are green = (235.7 ± 4.7) mV, red = (276.6 ± 4.5) mV, and blue = (304.1 ± 8.5) mV.

FIG. 3.

Contact potential distributions obtained from the Kelvin probe images of Fig. 2. The black curves are fits with Gaussian profiles. The (mean ± half width) of the distributions are green = (235.7 ± 4.7) mV, red = (276.6 ± 4.5) mV, and blue = (304.1 ± 8.5) mV.

Close modal

To explore this question further, we performed SKPM measurements on ITO/TiO2 (5 and 10 nm) coated with active layers to study the local surface photovoltage (SPV) and the local recombination rate (or local carrier lifetime τ). We previously showed that the properties of the charge extracting contact significantly affects the VOC and both the bulk and local recombination rates that can be determined by SKPM experiments.23,34 We measured SPV by taking the difference in surface potential under constant illumination and in the dark,35–38 and we used intensity modulated SKPM (IM-SKPM) to measure the local recombination rate. IM-SKPM was previously used by Takihara et al. to measure local sub-ms carrier lifetimes on inorganic photovoltaic microstructures.39 This experiment is conducted in the frequency domain by measuring the time averaged surface potential, while the intensity and frequency of the probing source are modulated. We recently showed that IM-SKPM is also suitable to measure local recombination rates in OPVs, in some cases producing quantitative agreement with macroscopic device measurements.23 

Fig. 4 shows the local surface photovoltage (a) and carrier lifetime distributions (b) obtained by frequency-modulated SKPM (cf. Ref. 23 for specific experimental details). Table I summarizes the means and the widths of the distributions as shown in Fig. 4. First, the 5-nm-thick TiO2 device has a SPV that is 6 ± 0.5 mV higher than the 10 nm thick titania layer. This result is in qualitative agreement with the device measurements (i.e., higher VOC for the 5 nm thick TiO2 device). The local carrier lifetime measured with IM-SKPM is also longer for the 5-nm-thick TiO2 device. While qualitatively consistent with the better performance of the 5-nm-thick TiO2 device, both of these changes are fairly small, however. Since SPV contrast can arise both from charge transfer at organic/TiO2 interface23,35 as well as vertical phase separation in the polymer:fullerene layer,35,40–42 we conclude that these effects are masking much of the change in buried interface properties in these inverted devices.

FIG. 4.

(a) Surface photovoltage obtained under 1 mW/cm2 white light illumination and (b) carrier lifetime distributions obtained by IMSKPM under constant 1 mW/cm2 white light illumination and frequency modulated 488 nm laser probe illumination (75 mW/cm2) on 5 nm (blue) and 10 nm (red) thick TiO2 devices (without top contact). The full black lines are Gaussian fits.

FIG. 4.

(a) Surface photovoltage obtained under 1 mW/cm2 white light illumination and (b) carrier lifetime distributions obtained by IMSKPM under constant 1 mW/cm2 white light illumination and frequency modulated 488 nm laser probe illumination (75 mW/cm2) on 5 nm (blue) and 10 nm (red) thick TiO2 devices (without top contact). The full black lines are Gaussian fits.

Close modal
TABLE I.

Characteristic parameters (mean μ and σ) of the Gaussian fits obtained from the surface photovoltage (SPV) and carrier lifetime (τ) distributions presented in Fig. 4.

TiO2 Thickness (nm)SPV (mean/width) (mV)τ (mean/width) (ms)
192.5/14.5 1.45/0.47 
10 186.5/13.4 1.15/0.33 
TiO2 Thickness (nm)SPV (mean/width) (mV)τ (mean/width) (ms)
192.5/14.5 1.45/0.47 
10 186.5/13.4 1.15/0.33 

To better understand how the changes in TiO2 layer thickness affect performance of the completed devices, we performed transient photovoltage (TPV) and CE measurements to investigate the recombination dynamics of the PCDTBT:PC71BM devices with different TiO2 layer thicknesses under open-circuit conditions. The experimental methods are described elsewhere (Refs. 43–45 and specific details of our setup are reported in Ref. 34). Briefly, TPV uses a weak light pulse to induce a small excess of charge carriers in a device held at VOC and measures the subsequent photovoltage transient to determine the pseudo-first-order recombination lifetime (τΔn). We performed TPV measurements at fixed background carrier densities (n), generated by constant illumination from a white-light bias at varying light intensities. We performed CE measurements to determine the carrier densities corresponding to each light intensity from the TPV measurements. Taken together, these techniques allow us to find the charge carrier lifetimes as a function of carrier density for each device.

Fig. 5 shows τΔn as a function of charge carrier density within the devices. The 3-, 5-, and 7-nm-thick TiO2 devices show longer recombination lifetimes (lower recombination loss) and higher carrier densities compared to the device with 10 nm thick TiO2, consistent with their higher VOC and FF. The device with 5 nm thick TiO2 exhibits longer carrier lifetimes compared to the 3 and 7 nm thick TiO2 devices, in agreement with the highest FF for the 5 nm thick TiO2. The SKPM data of Figs. 2 and 3 show a reduction in work function as the TiO2 thickness increases, therefore lowering the energy barrier between the conduction band of the TiO2 and the LUMO of PC71BM. This lowering should also reduce the hole concentration near the electron-extracting contact by increasing the built-in electric field within the active layer to drive holes more efficiently toward the top, hole-extracting, contact. Therefore, the increase in lifetime from 3- to 5-nm-thick TiO2 is most likely a result from a reduced recombination in the BHJ near the TiO2 interface due to more favorable band bending.

FIG. 5.

Pseudo-first-order charge carrier recombination lifetime τΔn (measured by TPV) vs. carrier density (n) (measured by CE) for inverted PCDTBT/PC71BM devices fabricated on 3, 5, 7, and 10 nm thick TiO2 layers.

FIG. 5.

Pseudo-first-order charge carrier recombination lifetime τΔn (measured by TPV) vs. carrier density (n) (measured by CE) for inverted PCDTBT/PC71BM devices fabricated on 3, 5, 7, and 10 nm thick TiO2 layers.

Close modal

The TPV and CE data indicate a rapid decrease in carrier lifetime associated with the drop in VOC and FF occurring for the 10-nm-thick TiO2 films. As is typical for organic solar cells, the pseudo-first order lifetime τΔn is strongly dependent on carrier density, with an apparent reaction order higher than 2.27,46,47 Nevertheless, these results suggest that, somehow, the carrier recombination kinetics at the organic/TiO2 layer become much less favorable as the TiO2 layer grows from ∼7 to 10 nm thick. Interestingly, previous work has shown that over this same range, the ALD-grown TiO2 films convert from conformal amorphous coatings to polycrystalline anatase TiO2.22,33 Indeed, a change from amorphous to anatase TiO2 is consistent with our own scanning probe data from Figs. 2 and 3, showing an increase in heterogeneity in the work function, smaller photovoltage, and shorter carrier lifetime for the 10-nm-thick TiO2 film. We interpret these results as a strong support for the hypothesis that the transition from amorphous to anatase TiO2, known to occur over this thickness range22,33 has an adverse effect on interfacial recombination kinetics. We conclude that the decrease in performance for the devices with 10-nm-thick TiO2 interlayer occurs, because the anatase TiO2 films exhibit less favorable recombination kinetics than the amorphous TiO2 interlayers. Although further studies will be required to understand this unfavorable change in recombination kinetics upon conversion of the TiO2 layer from amorphous to anatase, we speculate that the newly formed grain boundaries in the crystalline film could contribute to increased recombination current, consistent with recent study by Dang et al.48 who have reported that the grain boundaries of anatase films can contribute to increased conductivity or leakage current of TiO2.

In conclusion, we have studied the effects of PE-ALD-grown titania layers of different thickness on the performance parameters of inverted OPV devices. We find that there is an optimal titania thickness while the film is still amorphous and that the performance decreases once the film becomes thick enough to convert to anatase. The TiO2 thickness influences OPV device performances primarily through VOC and FF. We achieved the highest PCEs for devices with 3 and 5 nm thick TiO2, when the crystal phase is amorphous and the work function in SKPM is homogeneous. As the TiO2 thickness increases to 10 nm and develops into the anatase phase, we observe that the work function becomes heterogeneous and there is a decrease in device PCE mainly through a drop in VOC and FF. We conclude that the recombination kinetics are not only affected by the interlayer work function, but that the phase of the interlayer plays a critical role, with more uniform amorphous TiO2 interlayers having superior properties as electron extracting/hole blocking contacts compared to the more heterogeneous and polycrystalline anatase films that emerge for thicker PE-ALD-grown films. There are substantial literatures on the effect of titania crystal structure on recombination kinetics in dye-sensitized solar cells,49–51 but little if any work on conformal amorphous films. This work suggests that such amorphous layers have desirable properties as interlayers for solid state devices.

This manuscript is based on work supported in part by the Office of Naval Research (N00014-14-1-0170) (D.S.G. and D.M., device measurements, microscopy, and TPV and CE measurements) and the Department of Energy through Bay Area Photovoltaics Consortium (DE-EE0004946) (PE-ALD TiO2 growth by S.G. and H.K.). D.M. is grateful to B.A.E.F. for a postdoctoral fellowship. The authors thank Dr. Micah S. Glaz, and Jeffrey S. Harrison for helpful discussions regarding the SKPM measurements.

1.
J.
Gong
,
S. B.
Darling
, and
F. Q.
You
,
Energy Environ. Sci.
8
(
7
),
1953
1968
(
2015
).
2.
J.
Zhao
,
Y.
Li
,
G.
Yang
,
K.
Jiang
,
H.
Lin
,
H.
Ade
,
W.
Ma
, and
H.
Yan
,
Nat. Energy
1
,
15027
(
2016
).
3.
C. C.
Chen
,
W. H.
Chang
,
K.
Yoshimura
,
K.
Ohya
,
J. B.
You
,
J.
Gao
,
Z. R.
Hong
, and
Y.
Yang
,
Adv. Mater.
26
(
32
),
5670
5677
(
2014
).
4.
M.
Jørgensen
,
K.
Norrman
, and
F. C.
Krebs
,
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
92
(
7
),
686
714
(
2008
).
5.
E. L.
Ratcliff
,
B.
Zacher
, and
N. R.
Armstrong
,
J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
2
(
11
),
1337
1350
(
2011
).
6.
H. M.
Mirletz
,
K. A.
Peterson
,
I. T.
Martin
, and
R. H.
French
,
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
143
,
529
538
(
2015
).
7.
Z.
Li
,
K. H.
Chiu
,
R. S.
Ashraf
,
S.
Fearn
,
R.
Dattani
,
H. C.
Wong
,
C.-H.
Tan
,
J.
Wu
,
J. T.
Cabral
, and
J. R.
Durrant
,
Sci. Rep.
5
,
15149
(
2015
).
8.
S. B.
Darling
and
F. Q.
You
,
RSC Adv.
3
(
39
),
17633
17648
(
2013
).
9.
M.
Leskelä
and
M.
Ritala
,
Thin Solid Films
409
(
1
),
138
146
(
2002
).
10.
H.
Kim
,
J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B
21
(
6
),
2231
2261
(
2003
).
11.
N. G.
Kubala
,
P. C.
Rowlette
, and
C. A.
Wolden
,
J. Phys. Chem. C
113
(
37
),
16307
16310
(
2009
).
12.
S. E.
Potts
,
W.
Keuning
,
E.
Langereis
,
G.
Dingemans
,
M. C. M.
van de Sanden
, and
W. M. M.
Kessels
,
J. Electrochem. Soc.
157
(
7
),
P66
P74
(
2010
).
13.
S. M.
George
,
Chem. Rev.
110
(
1
),
111
131
(
2010
).
14.
V.
Miikkulainen
,
M.
Leskelä
,
M.
Ritala
, and
R. L.
Puurunen
,
J. Appl. Phys.
113
(
2
),
021301
(
2013
).
15.
R. W.
Johnson
,
A.
Hultqvist
, and
S. F.
Bent
,
Mater. Today
17
(
5
),
236
246
(
2014
).
16.
S. H.
Park
,
A.
Roy
,
S.
Beaupre
,
S.
Cho
,
N.
Coates
,
J. S.
Moon
,
D.
Moses
,
M.
Leclerc
,
K.
Lee
, and
A. J.
Heeger
,
Nat. Photonics
3
(
5
),
297
302
(
2009
).
17.
K. X.
Steirer
,
P. F.
Ndione
,
N. E.
Widjonarko
,
M. T.
Lloyd
,
J.
Meyer
,
E. L.
Ratcliff
,
A.
Kahn
,
N. R.
Armstrong
,
C. J.
Curtis
,
D. S.
Ginley
,
J. J.
Berry
, and
D. C.
Olson
,
Adv. Energy Mater.
1
(
5
),
813
820
(
2011
).
18.
X. L.
Liu
,
S.
Huettner
,
Z. X.
Rong
,
M.
Sommer
, and
R. H.
Friend
,
Adv. Mater.
24
(
5
),
669
674
(
2012
).
19.
E. L.
Ratcliff
,
A.
Garcia
,
S. A.
Paniagua
,
S. R.
Cowan
,
A. J.
Giordano
,
D. S.
Ginley
,
S. R.
Marder
,
J. J.
Berry
, and
D. C.
Olson
,
Adv. Energy Mater.
3
(
5
),
647
656
(
2013
).
20.
N.
Blouin
,
A.
Michaud
, and
M.
Leclerc
,
Adv. Mater.
19
(
17
),
2295
2300
(
2007
).
21.
S.
Beaupre
and
M.
Leclerc
,
J. Mater. Chem. A
1
(
37
),
11097
11105
(
2013
).
22.
H.
Kim
,
K.-L.
Ou
,
X.
Wu
,
P. F.
Ndione
,
J.
Berry
,
Y.
Lambert
,
T.
Melin
,
N. R.
Armstrong
, and
S.
Graham
,
J. Mater. Chem. A
3
(
33
),
17332
17343
(
2015
).
23.
G.
Shao
,
M. S.
Glaz
,
F.
Ma
,
H.
Ju
, and
D. S.
Ginger
,
ACS Nano
8
(
10
),
10799
10807
(
2014
).
24.
J.
Liu
,
Q.
Liang
,
H.
Wang
,
M.
Li
,
Y.
Han
,
Z.
Xie
, and
L.
Wang
,
J. Phys. Chem. C
118
(
9
),
4585
4595
(
2014
).
25.
D. H.
Wang
,
K. H.
Park
,
J. H.
Seo
,
J.
Seifter
,
J. H.
Jeon
,
J. K.
Kim
,
J. H.
Park
,
O. O.
Park
, and
A. J.
Heeger
,
Adv. Energy Mater.
1
(
5
),
766
770
(
2011
).
26.
S.
Alem
,
T.-Y.
Chu
,
S. C.
Tse
,
S.
Wakim
,
J.
Lu
,
R.
Movileanu
,
Y.
Tao
,
F.
Bélanger
,
D.
Désilets
,
S.
Beaupré
,
M.
Leclerc
,
S.
Rodman
,
D.
Waller
, and
R.
Gaudiana
,
Org. Electron.
12
(
11
),
1788
1793
(
2011
).
27.
H.
Ju
,
K. M.
Knesting
,
W.
Zhang
,
X.
Pan
,
C.-H.
Wang
,
Y.-W.
Yang
,
D. S.
Ginger
, and
J.
Zhu
,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
8
(
3
),
2125
2131
(
2016
).
28.
H.-C.
Liao
,
C.-C.
Ho
,
C.-Y.
Chang
,
M.-H.
Jao
,
S. B.
Darling
, and
W.-F.
Su
,
Mater. Today
16
(
9
),
326
336
(
2013
).
29.
G.
Fang
,
J.
Liu
,
Y.
Fu
,
B.
Meng
,
B.
Zhang
,
Z.
Xie
, and
L.
Wang
,
Org. Electron.
13
(
11
),
2733
2740
(
2012
).
30.
G. F.
Burkhard
,
E. T.
Hoke
, and
M. D.
McGehee
,
Adv. Mater.
22
(
30
),
3293
3297
(
2010
).
31.
F.
Matsumoto
,
S. M.
Vorpahl
,
J. Q.
Banks
,
E.
Sengupta
, and
D. S.
Ginger
,
J. Phys. Chem. C
119
(
36
),
20810
20816
(
2015
).
32.
W.
Melitz
,
J.
Shen
,
A. C.
Kummel
, and
S.
Lee
,
Surf. Sci. Rep.
66
(
1
),
1
27
(
2011
).
33.
D. H.
Kim
,
M.
Woodroof
,
K.
Lee
, and
G. N.
Parsons
,
ChemSusChem
6
(
6
),
1014
1020
(
2013
).
34.
K. M.
Knesting
,
H. X.
Ju
,
C. W.
Schlenker
,
A. J.
Giordano
,
A.
Garcia
,
O. L.
Smith
,
D. C.
Olson
,
S. R.
Marder
, and
D. S.
Ginger
,
J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
4
(
23
),
4038
4044
(
2013
).
35.
L.
Kronik
and
Y.
Shapira
,
Surf. Sci. Rep.
37
(
1–5
),
1
206
(
1999
).
36.
M.
Chiesa
,
L.
Bürgi
,
J.-S.
Kim
,
R.
Shikler
,
R. H.
Friend
, and
H.
Sirringhaus
,
Nano Lett.
5
(
4
),
559
563
(
2005
).
37.
E. J.
Spadafora
,
R.
Demadrille
,
B.
Ratier
, and
B.
Grévin
,
Nano Lett.
10
(
9
),
3337
3342
(
2010
).
38.
F.
Fuchs
,
F.
Caffy
,
R.
Demadrille
,
T.
Mélin
, and
B.
Grevin
,
ACS Nano
10
(
1
),
739
746
(
2016
).
39.
M.
Takihara
,
T.
Takahashi
, and
T.
Ujihara
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
93
(
2
),
021902
(
2008
).
40.
M.
Dante
,
A.
Garcia
, and
T.-Q.
Nguyen
,
J. Phys. Chem. C
113
(
4
),
1596
1600
(
2009
).
41.
A. H.
Rice
,
R.
Giridharagopal
,
S. X.
Zheng
,
F. S.
Ohuchi
,
D. S.
Ginger
, and
C. K.
Luscombe
,
ACS Nano
5
(
4
),
3132
3140
(
2011
).
42.
F.
Liu
,
C.
Wang
,
J. K.
Baral
,
L.
Zhang
,
J. J.
Watkins
,
A. L.
Briseno
, and
T. P.
Russell
,
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
135
(
51
),
19248
19259
(
2013
).
43.
C. G.
Shuttle
,
A.
Maurano
,
R.
Hamilton
,
B.
O'Regan
,
J. C.
de Mello
, and
J. R.
Durrant
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
93
(
18
),
183501
(
2008
).
44.
A.
Maurano
,
C. C.
Shuttle
,
R.
Hamilton
,
A. M.
Ballantyne
,
J.
Nelson
,
W. M.
Zhang
,
M.
Heeney
, and
J. R.
Durrant
,
J. Phys. Chem. C
115
(
13
),
5947
5957
(
2011
).
45.
J. M.
Lobez
,
T. L.
Andrew
,
V.
Bulović
, and
T. M.
Swager
,
ACS Nano
6
(
4
),
3044
3056
(
2012
).
46.
C. G.
Shuttle
,
B.
O'Regan
,
A. M.
Ballantyne
,
J.
Nelson
,
D. D. C.
Bradley
, and
J. R.
Durrant
,
Phys. Rev. B
78
(
11
),
113201
(
2008
).
47.
S. A.
Hawks
,
F.
Deledalle
,
J.
Yao
,
D. G.
Rebois
,
G.
Li
,
J.
Nelson
,
Y.
Yang
,
T.
Kirchartz
, and
J. R.
Durrant
,
Adv. Energy Mater.
3
(
9
),
1201
1209
(
2013
).
48.
V.-S.
Dang
,
H.
Parala
,
J. H.
Kim
,
K.
Xu
,
N. B.
Srinivasan
,
E.
Edengeiser
,
M.
Havenith
,
A. D.
Wieck
,
T.
de los Arcos
,
R. A.
Fischer
, and
A.
Devi
,
Phys. Status Solidi A
211
(
2
),
416
424
(
2014
).
49.
N. G.
Park
,
J.
van de Lagemaat
, and
A. J.
Frank
,
J. Phys. Chem. B
104
(
38
),
8989
8994
(
2000
).
50.
G.
Li
,
C. P.
Richter
,
R. L.
Milot
,
L.
Cai
,
C. A.
Schmuttenmaer
,
R. H.
Crabtree
,
G. W.
Brudvig
, and
V. S.
Batista
,
Dalton Trans.
(
45
),
10078
10085
(
2009
).
51.
A.
Henning
,
G.
Günzburger
,
R.
Jöhr
,
Y.
Rosenwaks
,
B.
Bozic-Weber
,
C. E.
Housecroft
,
E. C.
Constable
,
E.
Meyer
, and
T.
Glatzel
,
Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.
4
,
418
428
(
2013
).