pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07718 · v2 · pith:2CQKZKJYnew · submitted 2026-05-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Exploring the Potential of Ternary Blending for Two and Three-Junction RAINBOW Solar Cells

Francesc Xavier Capella-Guardi\`a , Jolanda Simone M\"uller , Muhammad Ahsan Saeed , Xabier Rodr\'iguez-Mart\'inez , Miquel Casademont-Vi\~nas , Albert Harillo-Ba\~nos , Jaime Mart\'in , Jenny Nelson
show 2 more authors
Alejandro R. Go\~ni Mariano Campoy-Quiles
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 23:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords organic photovoltaicsternary blendsmulti-junction solar cellsspectral splittingRAINBOW architectureblade coatingpower conversion efficiencyscalable fabrication
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ternary blending in side-by-side subcells raises organic photovoltaic efficiency to 17.3 percent in three-junction RAINBOW devices.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests a RAINBOW geometry for organic solar cells in which subcells sit side by side rather than stacked, with external connections that combine their outputs. Different bandgap materials each target a slice of the solar spectrum, and the authors first evaluate seven binary blends before turning to five ternary blends to reduce losses at the spectrum edges. Ternary mixing adjusts open-circuit voltage, and when the blend morphology and energy levels line up, it raises power conversion efficiency in the wavelength band assigned to that subcell. Using meniscus-guided blade coating on proof-of-concept devices, the measured efficiency climbs from 12.9 percent in single-junction cells to 15.9 percent in two-junction and 17.3 percent in three-junction configurations, with simulations predicting 16.4 percent and 17.7 percent respectively.

Core claim

Ternary blending overcomes spectral-region limitations in the RAINBOW side-by-side architecture, producing measured efficiencies of 15.9 percent for two-junction devices and 17.3 percent for three-junction devices when subcells are deposited by scalable blade coating, with simulations confirming the gains and detailed-balance limits showing further upside once wider-bandgap materials are available.

What carries the argument

The RAINBOW geometry, a side-by-side arrangement of subcells with external electrical connections that splits the spectrum without requiring current matching or vertical stacking.

If this is right

  • Simulations identify the highest-efficiency two-junction and three-junction stacks as those that incorporate ternary blends.
  • All fabricated high-efficiency devices use meniscus-guided blade coating, confirming the architecture works with scalable deposition.
  • Detailed balance calculations indicate the geometry can reach much higher performance once materials with 2 to 2.5 eV bandgaps become available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The external-connection approach could be adapted to other thin-film photovoltaic families to simplify multi-junction fabrication.
  • Systematic variation of ternary ratios might further shift absorption edges and increase the number of viable subcell combinations.
  • Blade-coated RAINBOW modules on flexible substrates would allow lightweight, spectrum-optimized power sources for portable or building-integrated use.

Load-bearing premise

Morphology and energy levels stay aligned in the chosen ternary blends so that efficiency rises specifically inside the spectral window assigned to each subcell.

What would settle it

Measuring the external quantum efficiency of a PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 ternary device in the red subcell position and finding no selective boost in the assigned wavelength range would show the alignment assumption does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07718 by Albert Harillo-Ba\~nos, Alejandro R. Go\~ni, Francesc Xavier Capella-Guardi\`a, Jaime Mart\'in, Jenny Nelson, Jolanda Simone M\"uller, Mariano Campoy-Quiles, Miquel Casademont-Vi\~nas, Muhammad Ahsan Saeed, Xabier Rodr\'iguez-Mart\'inez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a) Chemical structure of the materials used in this study and b) their energy levels; [59–62] c) RAINBOW architecture showing an optical element to divide the incident spectrum laterally over three subcells. 2.1. Binary blends Firstly, the performance and the absorption properties of single-junction binary blend systems are evaluated to identify suitable candidates for each subcell. Devices are fabricated … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: a) EQE of different BHJ across the solar spectrum and b) their corresponding Voc and Jsc values over bandgap distribution. 2.2. Study of Ternaries We first focus on PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F as it is the lowest bandgap blend available, whose FF, Voc and Jsc are clearly lower than expected according to the gap, possibly due to transport limitations. Adding another acceptor with higher gap as a third component may he… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a) Voc depending on the addition of a third component (A2) to PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F. The inset shows the relative increase of Voc between the ternaries (PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:A2) and the two binaries (left, PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F; right, PTB7-Th:A2); b) EQE of PTB7- Th:COTIC-4F:IEICO-4F; c) EQE of the best devices of every ratio of PTB7-Th:COTIC￾4F:BTP-eC9; d) trend of EQE at 1000 nm and efficiencies of the best devices f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results of a 2-junction RAINBOW. a) Determination of the best cutting wavelength based on the maximum achievable RAINBOW efficiency with IoBC (top) and its corresponding RAINBOW Jsc (bottom); b) RAINBOW efficiencies using PTB7-Th:COTIC￾4F:BTP-eC9 binary and ternary blends as red cell in combination with different binary systems as blue cell. Figure 5b summarizes the results of all RAINBOW combin… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) 3-junction RAINBOW simulation of PTQ10:FCC-Cl + PM6:DTY6 + Ternary 1:0.6:0.9. The upper panel shows the EQE of the subcells over the spectrum at the optimal dividing wavelengths. The lower panel shows the RAINBOW PCE depending on 2 dividing wavelengths; b) increase of efficiency with increasing junctions for all possible subcell combinations. The red circle marks the 3-junction combinations that exhibit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) Optimal subcell bandgaps for maximum multijunction efficiency; b) maximum efficiency for each number of junctions. 3. Conclusion In this study, we explored the RAINBOW multijunction architecture with 2 and 3 junctions as a scalable way to improve OPV performance. To enhance the efficiency of the narrow bandgap binary system PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F, used as a red subcell due to its extended infrared absorption,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The efficiency of organic photovoltaics (OPV) has been steadily increasing over the past decade until reaching the 20\% milestone. Multijunction architectures provide a promising approach to further enhance performance. Here we explore the potential of a spectral splitting geometry, referred to as RAINBOW, in which subcells are placed side-by-side and externally connected, thus minimizing the fabrication and current matching challenges found in vertically stacked configurations. First, we tested 7 different binaries with bandgaps spanning from 1.98 to 1.16 eV. The systems with the widest and narrowest gaps suffered greater losses and so we evaluate if ternary mixing could help to overcome these limitations by evaluating 5 different ternaries. Generally speaking, ternary mixing tunes the Voc, and when morphology and energy levels are well aligned, the overall PCE can be boosted in the spectral region where the subcell should absorb, as is the case for PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 when operating as red subcell. Device simulations help to identify the 2-junction and 3-junction configurations with highest PCEs, all of which include ternaries. We fabricate proof-of-concept RAINBOW devices using scalable methods in which the subcells are deposited by meniscus-guided blade coating. The efficiency improves from 12.9\% in single-junction devices to 15.9\% in 2-junction devices (16.4\% in simulations) and 17.3\% in 3-junction devices (17.7\% in simulations), confirming the viability of the RAINBOW architecture for scalable, high-efficiency OPVs. Finally, detailed balance analysis indicates that the potential of this geometry can be very high provided that high efficiency wide bandgap (2-2.5 eV) materials become available.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores ternary blending to enhance performance in RAINBOW solar cells, a side-by-side spectral-splitting geometry for organic photovoltaics that avoids vertical stacking and current-matching issues. After screening seven binary blends spanning 1.98–1.16 eV and five ternaries, the authors use device simulations to identify optimal two- and three-junction configurations (all incorporating ternaries), fabricate proof-of-concept devices via meniscus-guided blade coating, and report PCE rising from 12.9% (single-junction) to 15.9% (two-junction, 16.4% simulated) and 17.3% (three-junction, 17.7% simulated). Detailed-balance analysis projects further gains if wide-gap (2–2.5 eV) materials become available.

Significance. If the reported PCE gains are shown to originate from complementary spectral absorption enabled by the ternary blends and RAINBOW geometry, the work would demonstrate a scalable route to multijunction OPVs that sidesteps fabrication challenges of stacked tandems. The combination of experimental blade-coated devices, simulations, and detailed-balance limits provides a coherent framework; the explicit use of scalable processing and the identification of ternary configurations that tune Voc while preserving morphology alignment are particular strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / ternary-blend results] Abstract and results on ternary blends: the central claim that 'when morphology and energy levels are well aligned, the overall PCE can be boosted in the spectral region where the subcell should absorb, as is the case for PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 when operating as red subcell' is load-bearing for the RAINBOW interpretation, yet the manuscript provides no EQE spectra or subcell-resolved J-V characteristics for the fabricated two- and three-junction devices. Without these data it is not possible to confirm that the observed efficiency increase from 12.9% to 15.9%/17.3% arises specifically from spectral splitting rather than area effects, coating uniformity, or measurement conventions.
  2. [Device simulations] Device-simulation section: the simulated PCE values (16.4% for two-junction, 17.7% for three-junction) are presented as predictive, but the text does not explicitly state whether the optical and electrical parameters were fitted to the same ternary-blend data used in the experimental devices or derived independently; this ambiguity affects the strength of the claim that simulations 'help to identify' the highest-PCE configurations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: reported efficiencies lack error bars, number of devices, or statistical summary, which is standard for OPV device performance claims.
  2. [Results] The manuscript would benefit from a table summarizing the Voc, Jsc, FF, and PCE for all single-junction binaries and ternaries to allow direct comparison with the RAINBOW results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential of the RAINBOW architecture combined with ternary blends. We address each major comment below and propose revisions where appropriate to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / ternary-blend results] Abstract and results on ternary blends: the central claim that 'when morphology and energy levels are well aligned, the overall PCE can be boosted in the spectral region where the subcell should absorb, as is the case for PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 when operating as red subcell' is load-bearing for the RAINBOW interpretation, yet the manuscript provides no EQE spectra or subcell-resolved J-V characteristics for the fabricated two- and three-junction devices. Without these data it is not possible to confirm that the observed efficiency increase from 12.9% to 15.9%/17.3% arises specifically from spectral splitting rather than area effects, coating uniformity, or measurement conventions.

    Authors: We agree that direct experimental confirmation of spectral splitting via EQE spectra or subcell-resolved J-V data for the multi-junction devices would strengthen the interpretation. The manuscript reports overall PCE values for the proof-of-concept blade-coated RAINBOW devices and relies on device simulations to attribute gains to complementary absorption. To address this point, we will include EQE spectra for the two- and three-junction devices in the revised manuscript, along with a comparison to the single-junction references, to demonstrate that the efficiency improvements arise from the intended spectral contributions rather than processing or measurement artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Device simulations] Device-simulation section: the simulated PCE values (16.4% for two-junction, 17.7% for three-junction) are presented as predictive, but the text does not explicitly state whether the optical and electrical parameters were fitted to the same ternary-blend data used in the experimental devices or derived independently; this ambiguity affects the strength of the claim that simulations 'help to identify' the highest-PCE configurations.

    Authors: The optical and electrical parameters in the device simulations were derived directly from experimental measurements on the individual ternary-blend films and single-junction devices (absorption coefficients, charge transport parameters, and recombination rates). This grounding is described in the methods and supplementary information, but we acknowledge that the connection to the specific ternary configurations could be stated more explicitly in the main text. We will revise the device-simulation section to clarify that the simulations are parameterized from the same experimental ternary-blend data sets used for the fabricated devices, thereby reinforcing that they serve to identify optimal configurations based on measured properties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental PCE gains independent of simulation inputs

full rationale

The paper reports measured efficiencies from fabricated single-junction (12.9%), 2-junction (15.9%), and 3-junction (17.3%) RAINBOW devices using blade-coated ternaries, with simulations providing separate predicted values (16.4% and 17.7%) used only to select which configurations to fabricate. No equation or step reduces the headline experimental results to fitted parameters by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise collapse to a self-citation or self-definition. The central claim rests on direct device measurements rather than tautological renaming or prediction of the same data used for fitting. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that ternary morphology and energy-level alignment can be achieved without introducing new loss channels; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract, but the simulation step implicitly relies on standard detailed-balance and drift-diffusion models.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Detailed balance analysis gives an upper limit once wide-gap (2-2.5 eV) materials exist.
    Invoked in the final sentence of the abstract to project future potential.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5947 in / 1444 out tokens · 39723 ms · 2026-05-20T23:05:10.207511+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Guan, Y. Li, C. Xu, N. Yin, C. Xu, C. Wang, M. Wang, Y. Xu, Q. Chen, D. Wang, L. Zuo, H. Chen, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2400342

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Y. Sun, L. Wang, C. Guo, J. Xiao, C. Liu, C. Chen, W. Xia, Z. Gan, J. Cheng, J. Zhou, Z. Chen, J. Zhou, D. Liu, T. Wang, W. Li, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024, 146, 12011

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    L. Zhu, M. Zhang, G. Zhou, Z. Wang, W. Zhong, J. Zhuang, Z. Zhou, X. Gao, L. Kan, B. Hao, F. Han, R. Zeng, X. Xue, S. Xu, H. Jing, B. Xiao, H. Zhu, Y. Zhang, F. Liu, Joule 2024, 8, 3153

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    L. Wang, C. Chen, Z. Gan, J. Cheng, Y. Sun, J. Zhou, W. Xia, D. Liu, W. Li, T. Wang, Advanced Materials 2025, 37, 2419923

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S. Wang, S. Wang, J. Wang, N. Yu, J. Qiao, X. Xie, C. Li, M. S. Abbasi, R. Ding, X. Zhang, Y. Han, G. Lu, J. Zhang, X. Hao, Z. Tang, Y. Cai, H. Huang, Advanced Energy Materials 2026, 16, 2405205

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    N. Wei, J. Chen, Y. Cheng, Z. Bian, W. Liu, H. Song, Y. Guo, W. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Lu, J. Zhou, Z. Bo, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2408934

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    J. Fu, H. Li, H. Liu, P. Huang, H. Chen, P. W. K. Fong, T. A. Dela Peña, M. Li, X. Lu, P. Cheng, Z. Xiao, S. Lu, G. Li, Nat Energy 2025, 10, 1251

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    C. Li, Y. Cai, P. Hu, T. Liu, L. Zhu, R. Zeng, F. Han, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, J. Lv, Y. Ma, D. Han, M. Zhang, Q. Lin, J. Xu, N. Yu, J. Qiao, J. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Xia, Z. Tang, L. Ye, X. Li, Z. Xu, X. Hao, Q. Peng, F. Liu, L. Guo, H. Huang, Nat. Mater. 2025, 24, 1626

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    R. Ma, Z. Luo, Y. Zhang, L. Zhan, T. Jia, P. Cheng, C. Yan, Q. Fan, S. Liu, L. Ye, G. Zhang, X. Xu, W. Gao, Y. Wu, J. Wu, Y. Li, Y. Liu, F. Liu, J. Song, H. Chen, W. Chen, X. Zhang, Y. Liu, J. Yuan, Q. Liu, Z. Kan, H. Yin, X. Li, Y. Ma, et al., Sci. China Mater. 2025, 68, 1689

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Moser, A

    M. Moser, A. Wadsworth, N. Gasparini, I. McCulloch, Advanced Energy Materials 2021, 11, 2100056

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Bernardo, T

    G. Bernardo, T. Lopes, D. G. Lidzey, A. Mendes, Advanced Energy Materials 2021, 11, 2100342

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Steinberger, Q

    M. Steinberger, Q. Xie, O. J. J. Ronsin, P. Maisch, K. C. Tam, A. Distler, J. Harting, C. J. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf, Flex. Print. Electron. 2024, 9, 043001

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    F. C. Krebs, N. Espinosa, M. Hösel, R. R. Søndergaard, M. Jørgensen, Advanced Materials 2014, 26, 29

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Krebs-Moberg, M

    M. Krebs-Moberg, M. Pitz, T. L. Dorsette, S. H. Gheewala, Renewable Energy 2021, 164, 556

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Meitzner, U

    R. Meitzner, U. S. Schubert, H. Hoppe, Advanced Energy Materials 2021, 11, 2002551

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    W. Song, J. Ge, L. Xie, Z. Chen, Q. Ye, D. Sun, J. Shi, X. Tong, X. Zhang, Z. Ge, Nano Energy 2023, 116, 108805

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Y. Wang, Y. Cui, J. Wang, Y. Xiao, Z. Chen, W. Wang, Y. Yu, S. Yang, R. Yu, X. Hao, S. Zhang, J. Hou, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2402575

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Tseng, L.-H

    Y.-C. Tseng, L.-H. Yeh, H.-L. Yip, C.-C. Chueh, Small 2025, 21, 2412507

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    E. G. Jeong, Y. Jeon, S. H. Cho, K. C. Choi, Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 1878

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    M. A. Saeed, S. H. Kim, H. Kim, J. Liang, H. Y. Woo, T. G. Kim, H. Yan, J. W. Shim, Advanced Energy Materials 2021, 11, 2003103

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    M. A. Saeed, S. Xuyao, H. S. Kim, G. M. Lee, H. Ahn, Y.-H. Kim, J. W. Shim, Advanced Optical Materials 2024, 12, 2302145

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Rühle, Solar Energy 2016, 130, 139

    S. Rühle, Solar Energy 2016, 130, 139

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Shockley, H

    W. Shockley, H. J. Queisser, J. Appl. Phys. 1961, 32, 510

    work page 1961

  24. [24]

    Trupke, M

    T. Trupke, M. A. Green, P. Würfel, J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 92, 1668

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    Asahi, H

    S. Asahi, H. Teranishi, K. Kusaki, T. Kaizu, T. Kita, Nat Commun 2017, 8, 14962. 26

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    R. Datt, S. Bishnoi, H. K. H. Lee, S. Arya, S. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. C. Tsoi, Aggregate 2022, 3, e185

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    M. A. Green, S. P. Bremner, Nature Mater 2017, 16, 23

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    De Wolf, E

    S. De Wolf, E. Aydin, Science 2023, 381, 30

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    A. D. Vos, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 1980, 13, 839

    work page 1980

  30. [30]

    I. M. Peters, C. D. Rodríguez Gallegos, L. Lüer, J. A. Hauch, C. J. Brabec, Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 2023, 31, 1006

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Z. Liu, R. Lin, M. Wei, M. Yin, P. Wu, M. Li, L. Li, Y. Wang, G. Chen, V. Carnevali, L. Agosta, V. Slama, N. Lempesis, Z. Wang, M. Wang, Y. Deng, H. Luo, H. Gao, U. Rothlisberger, S. M. Zakeeruddin, X. Luo, Y. Liu, M. Grätzel, H. Tan, Nat. Mater. 2025, 24, 252

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Lim, N.-G

    J. Lim, N.-G. Park, S. I. Seok, M. Saliba, Energy Environ. Sci. 2024, 17, 4390

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    K. O. Brinkmann, P. Wang, F. Lang, W. Li, X. Guo, F. Zimmermann, S. Olthof, D. Neher, Y. Hou, M. Stolterfoht, T. Wang, A. B. Djurišić, T. Riedl, Nat Rev Mater 2024, 9, 202

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    G. Yang, C. Deng, C. Li, T. Zhu, D. Liu, Y. Bai, Q. Chen, J. Huang, G. Li, Nat. Photon. 2025, 19, 913

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    J. Wang, J. Li, Y. Wang, J. Ren, P. Bi, H. Li, J. Dai, S. Zhang, J. Hou, Advanced Materials 2025, 37, e10378

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    C. Li, Y. Wang, W. C. H. Choy, Small Methods 2020, 4, 2000093

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Y. Ko, H. Park, C. Lee, Y. Kang, Y. Jun, Advanced Materials 2020, 32, 2002196

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Zheng, J

    Z. Zheng, J. Wang, P. Bi, J. Ren, Y. Wang, Y. Yang, X. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Hou, Joule 2022, 6, 171

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    A. K. Converse, In Conference Record of the Twenty Fifth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1996, 1996, pp. 1299–1302

    work page 1996

  40. [40]

    C. R. Lewis, W. M. Phillips, V. B. Shields, P. M. Stella, I. Bekey, In IECEC-97 Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (Cat. No.97CH6203), 1997, pp. 401–406, Vol. 1

    work page 1997

  41. [41]

    Barnett, D

    A. Barnett, D. Kirkpatrick, C. Honsberg, D. Moore, M. Wanlass, K. Emery, R. Schwartz, D. Carlson, S. Bowden, D. Aiken, A. Gray, S. Kurtz, L. Kazmerski, M. Steiner, J. Gray, T. Davenport, R. Buelow, L. Takacs, N. Shatz, J. Bortz, O. Jani, K. Goossen, F. Kiamilev, A. Doolittle, I. Ferguson, B. Unger, G. Schmidt, E. Christensen, D. Salzman, Progress in Photo...

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    M. A. Green, A. Ho-Baillie, Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 2010, 18, 42

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Stefancich, A

    M. Stefancich, A. Zayan, M. Chiesa, S. Rampino, D. Roncati, L. Kimerling, J. Michel, Opt. Express 2012, 20, 9004

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    M. D. Escarra, S. Darbe, E. C. Warmann, H. A. Atwater, In 2013 IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2013, pp. 1852–1855

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    Huang, J

    Q. Huang, J. Wang, B. Quan, Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, D. Li, Q. Meng, L. Pan, Y. Wang, G. Yang, Appl. Opt. 2013, 52, 2312

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Y. Yao, H. Liu, W. Wu, Appl. Phys. A 2014, 115, 713

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    Huang, Q

    Q. Huang, Q. Peng, J. Hu, H. Xu, C. Jiang, Q. Liu, In 2016 IEEE Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC), 2016, pp. 1528–1532

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    S. K. Thio, S.-Y. Park, Energies 2019, 12, 4719

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    M. L. Schubert, J. D. Fischbach, M. Nyman, L. Lüer, C. J. Brabec, C. Rockstuhl, T. J. Sturges, APL Photonics 2025, 10, 066105

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Casademont-Viñas, M

    M. Casademont-Viñas, M. Gibert-Roca, M. Campoy-Quiles, A. R. Goñi, Review of Scientific Instruments 2023, 94, 103907. 27

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Gibert-Roca, M

    M. Gibert-Roca, M. Casademont-Viñas, Q. Liu, K. Vandewal, A. R. Goñi, M. Campoy- Quiles, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2212226

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    W. Liu, X. Xu, J. Yuan, M. Leclerc, Y. Zou, Y. Li, ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 598

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    D. Meng, R. Zheng, Y. Zhao, E. Zhang, L. Dou, Y. Yang, Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 2107330

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Almora, A

    O. Almora, A. O. Alvarez, D. Baran, C. I. Cabrera, L. A. Castriotta, B. Ehrler, S. Erten- Ela, K. Fukuda, F. Guo, J. Hauch, A. W. Y. Ho-Baillie, T. J. Jacobsson, R. A. J. Janssen, T. Kirchartz, M. A. Loi, R. R. Lunt, X. Mathew, J. Min, D. B. Mitzi, M. K. Nazeeruddin, A. F. Nogueira, U. W. Paetzold, N.-G. Park, B. P. Rand, H. Snaith, T. Someya, C. Sprau, L...

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    H. Lu, J. Zhang, J. Chen, Q. Liu, X. Gong, S. Feng, X. Xu, W. Ma, Z. Bo, Advanced Materials 2016, 28, 9559

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    J. Mai, Y. Xiao, G. Zhou, J. Wang, J. Zhu, N. Zhao, X. Zhan, X. Lu, Advanced Materials 2018, 30, 1802888

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Lee, J.-H

    J. Lee, J.-H. Lee, H. Yao, H. Cha, S. Hong, S. Lee, J. Kim, J. R. Durrant, J. Hou, K. Lee, J. Mater. Chem. A 2020, 8, 6682

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    X. Xu, Y. Li, Q. Peng, Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 2107476

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    A. A. A. Torimtubun, M. Méndez, E. Moustafa, J. Pallarès, E. Palomares, L. F. Marsal, Solar RRL 2023, 7, 2300228

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Li, J.-D

    Y. Li, J.-D. Lin, X. Liu, Y. Qu, F.-P. Wu, F. Liu, Z.-Q. Jiang, S. R. Forrest, Advanced Materials 2018, 30, 1804416

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    Huang, S.-Y

    W. Huang, S.-Y. Chang, P. Cheng, D. Meng, B. Zhu, S. Nuryyeva, C. Zhu, L. Huo, Z. Wang, M. Wang, Y. Yang, Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 7977

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    Lee, S.-J

    J. Lee, S.-J. Ko, M. Seifrid, H. Lee, B. R. Luginbuhl, A. Karki, M. Ford, K. Rosenthal, K. Cho, T.-Q. Nguyen, G. C. Bazan, Advanced Energy Materials 2018, 8, 1801212

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    G. He, B. Mayberry, M. Pranav, M. S. Shadabroo, B. Sun, Y. Cao, S. Shoaee, M. Stolterfoht, D. Neher, F. Lang, ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 3980

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Dyer-Smith, Clare, Nelson, Jenny, In Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics, Academic Press, 2012, pp. 543–569

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    Bertrandie, J

    J. Bertrandie, J. Han, C. S. P. De Castro, E. Yengel, J. Gorenflot, T. Anthopoulos, F. Laquai, A. Sharma, D. Baran, Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 2202575

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    J. Li, G. Liu, W. Liu, Y. Si, W. Deng, H. Wu, Advanced Photonics Research 2022, 3, 2100269

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    Baran, R

    D. Baran, R. S. Ashraf, D. A. Hanifi, M. Abdelsamie, N. Gasparini, J. A. Röhr, S. Holliday, A. Wadsworth, S. Lockett, M. Neophytou, C. J. M. Emmott, J. Nelson, C. J. Brabec, A. Amassian, A. Salleo, T. Kirchartz, J. R. Durrant, I. McCulloch, Nature Mater 2017, 16, 363

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    F. Bai, J. Zhang, A. Zeng, H. Zhao, K. Duan, H. Yu, K. Cheng, G. Chai, Y. Chen, J. Liang, W. Ma, H. Yan, Joule 2021, 5, 1231

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    E. L. Ratcliff, J. Meyer, K. X. Steirer, N. R. Armstrong, D. Olson, A. Kahn, Organic Electronics 2012, 13, 744

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    S. Y. Park, C. Labanti, R. A. Pacalaj, T. H. Lee, Y. Dong, Y.-C. Chin, J. Luke, G. Ryu, D. Minami, S. Yun, J.-I. Park, F. Fang, K.-B. Park, J. R. Durrant, J.-S. Kim, Advanced Materials 2023, 35, 2306655

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Casademont-Viñas, D

    M. Casademont-Viñas, D. Capolat, A. Quesada-Ramírez, M. Reinfelds, G. Trimmel, M. Sanviti, J. Martín, A. R. Goñi, T. Kirchartz, M. Campoy-Quiles, J. Mater. Chem. A 2024, 12, 16716

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Shoaee, H

    S. Shoaee, H. M. Luong, J. Song, Y. Zou, T.-Q. Nguyen, D. Neher, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2302005

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    J. Fu, Q. Yang, P. Huang, S. Chung, K. Cho, Z. Kan, H. Liu, X. Lu, Y. Lang, H. Lai, F. He, P. W. K. Fong, S. Lu, Y. Yang, Z. Xiao, G. Li, Nat Commun 2024, 15, 1830. 28

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    T. M. Clarke, J. R. Durrant, Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 6736

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    S. M. Menke, N. A. Ran, G. C. Bazan, R. H. Friend, Joule 2018, 2, 25

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Azzouzi, N

    M. Azzouzi, N. P. Gallop, F. Eisner, J. Yan, X. Zheng, H. Cha, Q. He, Z. Fei, M. Heeney, A. A. Bakulin, J. Nelson, Energy Environ. Sci. 2022, 15, 1256

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, fourth edition, MIT Press, 2022. 1 Supporting Information 2 S1. Active layer materials names PTQ10: poly[(thiophene)-alt-(6,7-difluoro-2-(2- hexyldecyloxy)quinoxaline)] PM6: poly[(2,6-(4,8-bis(5-(2-ethylhexyl-3-fluoro)thiophen-2-yl)-benzo[1,2-b:4,5- b’]dithiophene))-alt-(5,...

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Wojdyr, J Appl Cryst 2010, 43, 1126

    M. Wojdyr, J Appl Cryst 2010, 43, 1126

    work page 2010

  79. [79]

    Rivnay, R

    J. Rivnay, R. Noriega, R. J. Kline, A. Salleo, M. F. Toney, Phys. Rev. B 2011, 84, 045203

    work page 2011