Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Indoor/outdoor light-harvesting by coupling low-cost organic solar cell with T

a luminescent solar concentrator
⁎ ⁎
Fahad Mateena, Muhammad Ahsan Saeedb, Jae Won Shimc, , Sung-Kyu Honga,
a
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
c
School of Electrical Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of luminescent solar concentrators (LSCs) is considered a promising solution for harvesting indoor and
Luminescent solar concentrator outdoor light energy. Despite a multitude of investigations of LSC based photovoltaic (PV) systems, few reports
Organic photovoltaics are available on LSCs for emerging PVs, such as third-generation PV technologies. To fill this gap, we develop a
Indoor and outdoor light harvesting novel LSC based PV device by coupling an LSC with a low-cost organic solar cell. The LSC is fabricated by
Aesthetics
employing different concentrations of organic luminophores, while a polymer/fullerene-based photoactive layer
is prepared for the organic PV (OPV) device. With proper spectral matching, our champion LSC-OPV device
exhibits optical efficiency (ηopt) and power conversion efficiency (ηPCE) of 6.10% and 0.51% under light-emitting
diode (LED) illumination, respectively. Further, performance evaluation under 1sun illumination implies the ηopt
and ηPCE of 8.5% and 0.17%. We also perform the color analysis of LSC-OPV devices which shows that such
devices are aesthetically feasible for use in indoor and outdoor conditions. Thus, this study highlights the
substantial opportunity for the rational design of hybrid LSC-PV systems where third-generation PVs are viable
prospects.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the global efforts toward the provision of eco-
friendly energy have been accelerated owing to concerns regarding
global warming and environmental sustainability. Among the various
ecofriendly energy technologies, photovoltaics (PVs) have significant
potential for satisfying the growing demand for clean and renewable
energy (Debije and Verbunt, 2012; Devabhaktuni et al., 2013; Kabir
et al., 2018; Kannan and Vakeesan, 2016; Khan and Arsalan, 2016;
Pandey et al., 2016; Vasiliev and Alameh, 2019; Yoon et al., 2011).
Rather than being confined to outdoor solar farms and conventional
rooftop solar panels, PV technologies should also be integrated with
building envelopes and indoor architectural elements. Luminescent
solar concentrator (LSC)-based PV systems have attracted considerable
attention in this transition, as they have the potential for use in power-
generating building windows that can replace conventional glass-based
windows and façades (Aste et al., 2019; Bergren et al., 2018; Mateen
et al., 2019b; Rafiee et al., 2019). Moreover, their capability to harvest
direct and diffused light, design flexibility, transparency, and unparallel
visual aesthetics have enabled them to be utilized in indoor
environments (Reinders et al., 2018). LSCs are waveguides and typi-
cally consist of a transparent polymer or glass sheet embedded with
luminescent species. Light falls on the surface of the LSC, is absorbed by
the embedded luminescent species (dyes and quantum dots) and is then
re-emitted at longer wavelengths. The re-emitted photons are trapped
inside the waveguide and moved toward its edges via total internal
reflection. The light collected at the waveguide edges is converted into
electricity using attached PV cells (Bradshaw et al., 2015; Griffini,
2019; Li et al., 2019; Mateen et al., 2019c). Since the introduction of the
LSC-based PV system, considerable effort has been directed toward
enhancing its power output under solar irradiation. A significant por-
tion of LSC research is dedicated to the investigation of appropriate
luminescent species; for example, various organic dyes (Bailey et al.,
2007; Debije et al., 2007; Debije et al., 2011; Drake et al., 1982; Dubois
et al., 1996; Seybold and Wagenblast, 1989) and inorganic quantum
dots (Bronstein et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2018; Krumer et al., 2013; Li
et al., 2015; Li et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2019; Purcell-Milton and Gun'ko,
2012; Shcherbatyuk et al., 2010; Sumner et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2018)
are introduced for harvesting a wide range of the solar spectrum, en-
hancing the device stability, and avoiding reabsorption losses in the

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: fahadmateen@dongguk.edu (F. Mateen), ahsansaeeddongguk@gmail.com (M. Ahsan Saeed), jwshim19@korea.ac.kr (J. Won Shim),
hsk5457@dongguk.edu (S.-K. Hong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.06.104
Received 25 February 2020; Received in revised form 23 June 2020; Accepted 29 June 2020
0038-092X/ © 2020 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Mateen, et al.
LSC. Other strategies for maximizing the efficiency of the LSC include
the use of Bragg reflectors (Iasilli et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2016), wave-
length-selective filters (De Boer, 2010; Verbunt et al., 2012), and
plasmonic nanoparticles (Barik and Basu, 2019; Mateen et al., 2017;
Rafiee et al., 2019).
Most of the research in this field is focused on LSCs coupled with
conventional Si and gallium arsenide solar cells (Bomm et al., 2011;
Slooff et al., 2008; Tummeltshammer et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2016).
However, few attempts have been made to connect LSCs with third-
generation PV devices, e.g., dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs) (Brennan
et al., 2018; Ha et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2014) and perovskite solar cells
(Chander et al., 2014). Recently, Su-Jin et al. (Ha et al., 2018) reported
a PdTPBP/BPEA-based dual-band LSC (5 cm × 1 cm × 1 mm) with one
edge coupled with a DSSC (active area of 1 cm × 1 mm), which
achieved a power conversion efficiency (ηPCE) of 6.1% under the air
mass 1.5 global (AM 1.5G) solar spectrum. In another recent work,
Lorcan et al. reported the integration of an LSC (10 × 9 cm2) with a
DSSC (active area of 9 × 0.2 cm2), yielding a ηPCE of 2.71% under 1-sun
irradiation (Brennan et al., 2018). The ηPCE of the LSC-PV system
strongly depends on its geometric factor (G), which is the ratio of the
LSC top surface area to its edge area where the PVs are attached (ATop/
AEdge). Attempts to couple LSCs with low-cost solution-processed or-
ganic solar cells (OSCs) have been overlooked, likely owing to the
limited exploration of LSCs containing luminescent species whose
emission spectra are compatible with the absorption spectrum of the
photoactive layer of OSCs. Moreover, to date, the LSC performance has
always been evaluated under AM 1.5G solar spectrum or in an outdoor
environment; its utilization under indoor light conditions has been ig-
nored. The intensities of artificial light sources in building rooms are
usually 100–500 times lower than the standard 1-sun condition (Reich
et al., 2011; Steim et al., 2011); therefore, the performance of LSC-PV
systems under low light conditions plays a critical role in determining
their practical viability.
To address these concerns, in the present study, we firstly demon-
strated the coupling of a dye based LSC (5 × 5 cm2) with organic PV
(OPV) devices (active area of 5 × 0.3 cm2), as shown in Fig. 1. In
addition to its utilization in an outdoor environment, our LSC-OPV
device provides an attractive route to harvest artificial light without
affecting the aesthetics of an indoor environment. As a proof of concept,
we prepared a bulk LSC using 3-(5-chlorobenzoxazol-2-yl)-7-diethyla-
minocoumarin, which is an organic dye generally called “yellow
10GN.” For the OPV device, a photoactive layer was prepared using a
blend of poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) and fullerene derivatives
(ICBA) (1:1, w/w). These materials were employed to match the ab-
sorption spectrum of the photoactive layer of the OPV with the pho-
toluminescence (PL) spectrum of the luminescent specie, i.e., yellow
10GN. We also performed a color analysis to determine the compat-
ibility of the LSC-OPV device with the visual comfort of the individuals
living in a building with such devices. The results indicated that the
prepared LSC-OPV device provides an aesthetically appealing approach
to harvest indoor and outdoor light, particularly for low-power con-
sumption products and “Internet of Things” devices.
2. Experimental
2.1. Fabrication of LSC
The LSC was fabricated according to our previously reported
method (Mateen et al., 2019a). First, 0.1 w/w % 2,2′-azobis 2-me-
thylpropionitrile AIBN (Aldrich, USA) and 0.010%–0.030% yellow
10GN (Bayer, Germany) were mixed with methyl methacrylate (Al-
drich, USA), followed by sonication for 15 min. A free-radical poly-
merization reaction was initiated by heating the blend solution at 85 °C.
After 30–45 min, the solution turned into a syrupy liquid, indicating the
formation of the prepolymer. After the viscosity exceeded that of gly-
cerol, this thick syrup was cooled to room temperature and poured into
380
Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387
a glass mold. The resulting product was dried in the mold at 45 °C for
almost 24 h. Finally, the dye-doped poly(methyl methacrylate (PMMA)
plate was laser-cut into square pieces with dimensions of
5 × 5 × 0.3 cm3.
2.2. Fabrication of OPV device
The fabrication of the OPV device was divided into two parts: so-
lution preparation and device preparation. In first part, ethoxylated
polyethylenimine (PEIE; 80% ethoxylated, molecular weight of
~70000 g/mol; concentration of approximately 35–40 wt% in water;
purchased from Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was diluted with 2-
methoxyethanol (Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and placed on a stirrer in
ambient air for approximately 12 h. A solution of P3HT (4002E, Rieke
Metals, Lincoln, NE, USA) and ICBA (Luminescence Technology Corp.,
New Taipei City, Taiwan) was prepared in chlorobenzene (Aldrich, St.
Louis, MO, USA) with 1:1 wt ratio to obtain a total (P3HT + ICBA)
concentration of 40 mg/mL. The P3HT:ICBA solution was magnetically
stirred at 45 °C for 1 h inside a N2-filled glovebox. To prepare a device,
indium tin oxide (ITO)-covered glass (AMG, Republic of Korea) with a
sheet resistivity of 12 Ω/sq was used as a substrate. Initially, all the
substrates were washed with detergent (Liqui-Nox® Phosphate-Free
Liquid Detergent, Alconox, Inc., White Plains, NY, USA), in a bath so-
nicator and rinsed with deionized (DI) water. Subsequently, substrates
were cleaned in DI water, acetone, and isopropyl alcohol sequentially
using an ultrasonicator for 20 min each. After each procedure, a N2 gun
was used to dry the substrates. A PEIE layer was deposited by spin
coating using a 0.2-µm polytetrafluoroethylene filter at a speed of
5000 rpm for 60 s in ambient air, followed by thermal annealing at
110 °C for 10 min. Then, the samples were loaded into the N2-filled
glovebox to deposit the active layer. The active layer comprising the
P3HT:ICBA blend was spin-coated at 700 rpm for 30 s, followed by
annealing at 150 °C for 10 min. Finally, a hole-transport layer (MoOx)
and top electrode (Ag) were deposited through a shadow mask at a base
pressure of ~4.5 × 10−8 Torr using a thermal evaporator system
(Daedong High Tech, Republic of Korea).
2.3. Measurements
Absorbance and emission spectra were measured using an ultra-
violet–visible spectrophotometer (PerkinElmer Lambda 35) and a
fluorescence spectrophotometer (Jasco, FP-8300), respectively. Edge
emission measurements were performed using a spectrometer (Avantes,
ULS2048) connected to an integrated sphere by a 1-m-long optical fiber
cable. The LSC devices were placed on the entry port outside the in-
tegrated sphere and were illuminated by a light source (Abet
Technologies, LS-150) equipped with a 150-W Xe arc lamp with filters
to approximate the AM 1.5G spectrum. To obtain the PV parameters,
first, the edges of the LSC were flame-polished for preventing scattering
losses. The one edge of LSC was then connected to a freshly prepared
OPV using an optically transparent refractive index-matching epoxy
adhesive (United Adhesives, OE 1582), as shown in Fig. 1(d). The re-
fractive index of epoxy adhesive is 1.5 which is approximately equal to
PMMA and ITO coated glass. Other three sides were covered with the
reflecting mirrors and the bottom surface was provided with the white
scattering background. Then, the surface of the LSC-OPV device was
illuminated by the AM 1.5G solar simulator (McScience, Republic of
Korea) with irradiance of 100 mW cm−2, and for the indoor light
conditions, an LED lamp (SLS LED100, McScience, Republic of Korea)
with irradiance of 0.28 mW cm−2 (at 1000 lx) was used for illumina-
tion.
3. Results and discussion
An energy diagram of the LSC-OPV device is shown in Fig. 2. First,
light irradiated the LSC, where it was absorbed by yellow 10GN,
F. Mateen, et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the LSC-OPV device. Incident light is absorbed by the organic luminophore (yellow 10GN) and is re-emitted. The re-emitted
light is then moved via total internal reflections toward the edges of the LSC, where it is harvested by the attached OPV (b) Photograph of the yellow 10GN-based
bulk LSC (c) OPV device structure (b) Schematic showing that re-emitted light was incident on the OPV device after passing through a layer of the refractive index-
matching adhesive (Refractive index 1.5). Use of the refractive index-matching adhesive to bind the LSC with the OPV reduced the scattering and other light losses.
Fig. 2. Energy diagram of the LSC-OPV device used.
followed by down-converted light emissions. The down-converted light
passed through the transparent ITO cathode, and the photoactive layer
absorbed the light, generating excitons. These excitons dissociated at
the P3HT/ICBA interface into electrons in the lowest unoccupied mo-
lecular orbital (LUMO) of the ICBA (acceptor) and holes in the highest
occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the P3HT (donor). Then, elec-
tron–hole transport occurred, generating an electric current.
To evaluate the potential of the LSC-coupled OPV (LSC-OPV) device,
cascade spectral matching was required; i.e., there should be optimum
overlapping of the absorption spectrum of yellow 10GN with the in-
coming light spectrum and the emission wavelength of the yellow 10GN
with the absorption wavelength of the photoactive layer of the OPV. To
quantify the ability of Yellow 10GN to absorb the incident light avail-
able for PV conversion, we calculate the absorption efficiency using
381
Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387
following Eqn 1.
λ1
(1 − R) ∫300 Pin (λ )[1 − e−α (λ)t ] dλ
ηabs = λ1
∫300 Pin (λ ) dλ (1)
where, R is the reflection loss which is around 4% in case of air/
PMMA system, λ1 is 4000 and 1100 for AM 1.5G light and LED light
respectively, α is absorption coefficient, t is the thickness of LSC, and
Pin is the incident photon flux. Based on the above equation, ηabs was
found to be ~11.5% and ~23.6% for AM 1.5G light and LED light,
respectively.
Fig. 3(a) shows an overlapping of absolute absorption and normal-
ized emission spectra of 200 ppm Yellow 10GN embedded in PMMA
waveguiding LSC device. The Stokes shift, which is the difference be-
tween the absorption and emission maxima (λemission max - λabs max), was
42 nm, suggesting that there were few reabsorption losses in the LSC. In
Fig. 3(b), comparison of the normalized absorption spectrum of yellow
10GN with the LED and AM 1.5G irradiance spectra has been shown.
Saturation of Yellow 10GN absorption is clearly observed with the
overall spectrum spanning from 300 nm to 500 nm. The absorption
wavelengths of the yellow 10GN imply that the corresponding elec-
tronic transitions were π – π*, which can be associated with the charge
transfer from the benzenic cycle to the pyranone moiety (Preat et al.,
2006). Moreover, the high absorption intensity in the range of
400–500 nm is supported by the presence of electron-releasing sub-
stituents such as diethylamino (Christie and Lui, 1999; Donovalová
et al., 2012). Fig. 3(c) shows a plot of the emission of yellow 10GN,
along with the absorption and external quantum efficiency (EQE) of the
P3HT/ICBA-based OPV. The emission spectrum of yellow 10GN was
obtained by exciting the molecules at 460 nm, and the corresponding
range was approximately 490–600 nm, with a sharp peak at 514 nm.
F. Mateen, et al.
Fig. 3. (a) Spectral overlap of absolute absorption and normalized emission of
yellow 10GN embedded in LSC. (b) Absorption of Yellow 10 GN and AM 1.5G
and LED irradiance spectra. (c) The emission spectrum of yellow 10GN from
LSC, absorption spectrum and EQE curve of the P3HT:ICBA-based OPV device.
The emission spectra at various excitation wavelengths are presented in
the Supporting Information (Fig. S1). Moreover, Fig. 3(b) indicates that
the emission spectrum of yellow 10GN well matched the EQE curve and
the absorption spectrum of the P3HT/ICBA-based OPV. Here, the shape
of the EQE curves is similar to the corresponding absorption spectra of
the P3HT/ICBA. Three vibrionic absorption shoulders at 512, 555, and
600 nm are observed, which are ascribed to the absorption of P3HT (Li
et al., 2011).
In an LSC, the concentration of luminophore is crucial because it is
one of the many factors that regulate the intensity of light at the edge
(Griffini et al., 2015; Lucarelli et al., 2016). Therefore, we prepared LSC
samples having 100, 200, and 300 ppm yellow 10GN and analyzed the
effect of the concentration on the photon flux at the LSC edge. We
employed an integrated-sphere method to obtain the photon flux at the
382
Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387
Fig. 4. Effect of the concentration of yellow 10GN on the edge photon flux of
the LSC.
LSC edge (inset of Fig. 4); this approach has been used by many other
research groups (Brennan et al., 2018; Albers et al., 2013; Kaniyoor
et al., 2016). Fig. 4 shows the photon flux measured at varying con-
centrations of yellow 10GN in the LSC. The maximum photon flux was
observed at 200 ppm, and the it decreased with a further increase in the
concentration of yellow 10GN. This variation of the photon flux at
different concentrations was expected, as less π → π* electronic ex-
citations occurred at lower concentrations (100 ppm), whereas higher
concentrations (300 ppm) led to fluorescence quenching, which is at-
tributed to the formation of excited-state dimers and aggregates, re-
ducing the edge emission intensity (El-Bashir et al., 2013; Lakowicz,
2013). In addition to the variation in the emission intensities, a slight
redshift in the spectra was observed as the concentration increased from
100 to 300 ppm. This is because the average distance between the
yellow 10GN molecules decreased with the increasing concentration.
The closely packed molecules could reabsorb emitted photons, giving
rise to the emission of secondary photons of higher wavelengths
(Griffini et al., 2015). In our samples, when the concentration was in-
creased to 200 ppm, the positive effect of the enhancement of the π →
π* electronic excitation was dominant over the aggregate formation
and reabsorption effects. Thus, the edge photon flux results indicate
that the LSC-OPV device with 200-ppm yellow 10GN would have the
highest performance because an increased amount of light was ab-
sorbed by the photoactive layer of the OPV.
To investigate the PV performance of the LSC, OPV was attached to
its one edge, while the other three edges were covered with the re-
flecting mirrors while a white scattering surface was attached on the
bottom side. The reflecting mirrors and bottom scattering surface allow
more photons to be directed toward the OPV connected edge. As shown
in Fig. 5, current density–voltage (J–V) curves were obtained for OPV
and LSC-OPV devices with yellow 10GN concentrations of 100, 200,
300 ppm under LED (1000 lx, 0.28 mW/cm-2) and 1-sun illumination
(100 mW/cm-2). Importantly, optimization of the OPV was outside the
scope of this study; therefore, all the OPV devices were prepared with
constant parameters. Common figures of merits used to describe the
performance of LSC-based PV systems are the optical conversion effi-
ciency (ηopt) and ηPCE (Hernandez-Noyola et al., 2012; Zhou et al.,
2015). ηopt is the optical collection probability and is defined as the
ratio of number of photons emitted from the LSC edge to number of
photons falling on its surface. While, ηPCE is the ratio of the electrical
power output to the incident power. The following equations (Eqn 2,
Eqn 3) are used to clarify the meaning of ηopt, and ηPCE.
ILSCOPV × AEdges
ηopt =
IOPV × ALSC (2)
F. Mateen, et al.
Fig. 5. Current density – voltage curve of LSC-OPV samples at different concentrations of yellow 10GN under LED light illumination. (b) J-V) curve of LSC-OPV
samples at different concentrations of yellow 10GN under 1 sun illumination. LSC-OPV-1: 100 ppm; LSC-OPV-2: 200 ppm; LSC-OPV-3: 300 ppm.
Pmax
ηPCE =
Irrincident × ALSC (3)
Here, ILSC OPV represents the short-circuit current measured for the
LSC-OPV device, and I OPV represents the short-circuit current measured
for the same OPV without attaching the LSC. ALSC and Aedges represent
the LSC’s top surface area and its edge area where the OPV was at-
tached, respectively. While, Pmax is the maximum power and Irrincident is
the irradiance of incident light.
First, we evaluated the performance of the OPV and LSC-OPV de-
vices under LED illumination. The OPV device exhibited a ηPCE of 7.8%,
short circuit current (Isc) of 113 ± 1 µA, a current density (Jsc) of
75.3 ± 1 µA/cm2, an open circuit voltage (Voc) of 624 ± 4 mV, a fill
factor (FF) of 46.4 ± 0.2, and a maximum power (Pmax) of
33.1 ± 1 µW. The recorded PV parameters of the LSC-OPV samples at
various yellow 10GN concentrations are presented in Fig. 6, and the
corresponding values of these parameters and the figures of merits are
presented in Table 1(a). As shown in Fig. 6, the trends of Isc, Voc, and FF,
were nonlinear with the increasing yellow 10GN concentration. LSC-
OPV-2 (with 200-ppm yellow 10GN) exhibited the highest ηopt
(6.1% ± 0.1) and ηPCE (0.44% ± 0.05), while the recorded values of Isc,
Voc, FF, and Pmax were 115.9 ± 2 µA, 629 ± 2 mV, 49 ± 0.5, and
35.7 ± 1 µW, respectively. LSC-OPV-3 exhibited the lowest perfor-
mance, with a ηopt of 4.9% ± 0.4, a ηPCE of 0.35% ± 0.05, an Isc of
94.7 ± 3 µA, a Voc of 611 ± 6 mV, an FF of 43.5 ± 1, and a Pmax of
25.1 ± 2 µW. The poor performance of LSC-OPV-3 could be due to the
photon loss caused by the reabsorption and aggregation effect in the
LSC waveguide. The superior performance of LSC-OPV-2 is attributed to
the fact that the largest number of photons was available for harvesting
in the case of LSC-OPV-2, in the same spectral window used for the
other two devices. A similar trend was observed for Si solar cell-based
LSC-PV systems in previous studies (Griffini et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2018). Moreover, all these results are consistent with the edge emission
measurements obtained using the integrated-sphere method.
The performance of the LSC-OPV device was also tested under 1-sun
illumination. First, the efficiency and PV parameters were obtained for
the OPV device, and the average results were as follows: ηPCE of 2.1%,
an Isc of 11.6 ± 0.2 mA, a Jsc of 7.7 ± 0.2 mA/cm2, a Voc of
817 ± 3 mV, an FF of 33.7 ± 3, and a Pmax of 3.2 ± 0.2 mW. The
results are consistent with our previous report (Nam et al., 2019). The
apparent decrease in the FF compared with those under LED illumi-
nation was expected and is attributed to the increased charge density
under 1-sun illumination. In contrast, the VOC was proportional to the
logarithm of the incident light intensity, and the JSC was linearly cor-
related with the light intensity; thus, they both exhibited higher values
under 1-sun illumination than under LED illumination. The LSC-OPV
with altered yellow 10GN concentrations under 1-sun illumination
383
Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387
exhibited promising results. Similar to the performance under LED il-
lumination, LSC-OPV-2 exhibited the best results: an ηopt of 8.5% ± 0.2,
a ηPCE of 0.17% ± 0.02, an Isc of 16.6 ± 0.2 mA, a Voc of 825 ± 4 mV,
an FF of 30.4 ± 4, and a Pmax of 4.1 ± 0.2 mW. As shown in Fig. 7(a),
minor discrepancies were observed in the average values of Voc (started
at 829 mV at a concentration of 100 ppm, decreased to 825 mV at
200 ppm, and finally increased to 835 mV at 300 ppm). This behavior
could be the result of light scattering at the LSC-OPV interface or a
portion of the light that was outside the emission range of yellow 10GN
but within the absorption range of the photoactive layer of OPV,
reaching the OPV owing to the polymer-matrix defects. The FF values
for all the LSC-OPV devices were nearly identical, i.e., approximately
30, which was lower than that for the uncoupled OPV device. Notably,
the Isc of all the LSC-OPV devices was higher than those of the un-
coupled OPV device. Moreover, the ηPCE of the champion device was
0.17%. Our results are comparable to the recent finding in which an
LSC was integrated with a third-generation PV cell (DSSC) and the
obtained ηopt of the LSC-DSSC device were 1.2% (Brennan et al., 2018).
For an LSC-based PV system in practice, a higher ηopt is not the only
critical criteria; the power output of the LSC-OPV device should be
higher than that of the OPV device without the LSC. To evaluate the
power enhancement of the LSC-OPV device relative to the uncoupled
OPV, the internal concentration factor (C) was employed, which is
defined as follows Eqn 4.
C = ηopt × G (4)
where G represents the ratio of LSC’s top surface area (ALSC) to its edge
area where the OPV was attached (Aedges). As shown in Fig. 8, the in-
ternal concentration factor was highest for LSC-OPV-2 under 1-sun il-
lumination, and the corresponding value of C was 1.4 for G = 16.6. The
values of C were > 1 for the other LSC-OPV devices under 1-sun il-
lumination, suggesting that all three devices are practically viable to be
employed in outdoor conditions. However, under LED illumination, the
LSC-OPV devices exhibited lower values of C: 0.9, 1.1, and 0.8 for LSC-
OPV-1, LSC-OPV-2, and LSC-OPV-3, respectively.
A color analysis of the LSC-OPV device was performed for in-
vestigating its applicability in outdoor and indoor environments, as
these properties are crucial for the application of LSC-OPV devices in
building integrated PVs, smart solar windows, and other aesthetically
attractive power-producing products. Our device exhibited high optical
transmission under standard visible illumination (Fig. 9 (a)). Based on
the transmission spectrum, we calculated the average visible trans-
mission (AVT), color coordinates CIE (L* a* b*) and color rendering
index under standard illumination (AM 1.5G) (Mateen et al., 2018;
Meinardi et al., 2015). All the calculations were based on the method
described by Yang et al. (Yang et al., 2019). As listed in Table 2, AVT
F. Mateen, et al. Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387

Fig. 6. Performance parameters: (a) Voc, (b) Isc, (c) FF, and (d) ηPCE, of the LSC-OPV devices under LED illumination with respect to the concentration of yellow
10GN. LSC-OPV-1: 100 ppm; LSC-OPV-2: 200 ppm; LSC-OPV-3: 300 ppm.

and CRI ranges from 86.2 to 84.3 and 20.1 to 18.8, respectively. For CIE
(L* a* b*), L* describes the lightness of the color while a positive value
of a* indicates the redness of the color, and a negative value of a* in-
dicates the greenness. Similarly, the yellowness and blueness are ex-
pressed by positive and negative values of the coordinate b* respec-
tively. The results reveal that the device exhibited a green-yellow tone.
Surprisingly, the values of CIE (L* a* b*) did not change without a
significantly with varying concentrations. The corresponding values of
a* for 100 ppm, 200 ppm and 300 ppm of Yellow 10GN in LSC are
−17.9, −17.5 and −17.0 respectively, while the values of b* are
102.3, 102.9 and 103.2, respectively (Table 3). Based on color analysis,
the presented LSC-OPV device is appropriate for employing in the in-
door and outdoor environment because this yellow color gives com-
fortable feeling for human.
Although we focused on light harvesting in the approximate wa-
velength range of 400–500 nm, which accounts for approximately
11.5% of 1-sun illumination (300–4000 nm) and 23.6% of LED illu-
mination (300–1100 nm), the results are sufficiently promising to in-
troduce a new untapped avenue for energy harvesting using LSC-cou-
pled third-generation PV devices, particularly low-cost, solution-
processed organic PVs. In the future, we intend to focus on maximizing
the light-harvesting range for both indoor and outdoor illumination.
4. Conclusions
A novel LSC-OPV device was prepared via a cascade spectral
matching approach, with the objective of enhancing the power output
and device efficiency. We fabricated three devices with different lu-
minophore concentrations. The results indicated that the LSC-OPV with
200-ppm yellow 10GN exhibited the best performance (ηopt and ηPCE of
6.1% and 0.51% under indoor LED illumination and ηopt of 8.5% and
ηPCE of 0.17% under 1-sun illumination). A color analysis of the LSC-
OPV device was performed to investigate its applicability in outdoor
and indoor environments. The results suggested that the LSC-OPV de-
vice can potentially offer an aesthetically appealing approach for har-
vesting indoor and outdoor light.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Table 1
Performance parameters of the LSC-OPV devices under LED illumination with respect to the concentration of yellow 10GN. LSC-OPV-1: 100 ppm; LSC-OPV-2:
200 ppm; LSC-OPV-3: 300 ppm.
Sample VOC (mV) ISC (µA) FF (%) G ηopt (%) ηPCE (%) C

LSC-OPV-1 623 ± 4 107.1 ± 6 46.7 ± 0.3 16.6 5.6 ± 0.2 0.44 ± 0.05 0.93
LSC-OPV-2 629 ± 2 115.9 ± 2 49.0 ± 0.5 16.6 6.1 ± 0.1 0.51 ± 0.01 1.01
LSC-OPV-3 611 ± 6 94.7 ± 3 43.5 ± 1.0 16.6 4.9 ± 0.4 0.35 ± 0.05 0.85

384
F. Mateen, et al.
Fig. 7. Performance parameters: (a) Voc, (b) Isc, (c) FF, and (d) ηPCE, of the LSC-OPV devices under 1-sun illumination with respect to the concentration of yellow
10GN. LSC-OPV-1: 100 ppm; LSC-OPV-2: 200 ppm; LSC-OPV-3: 300 ppm.
Fig. 8. Concentration factors (C) of the LSC-OPV devices under 1-sun and LED
illumination. LSC-OPV-1: 100 ppm; LSC-OPV-2: 200 ppm; LSC-OPV-3:
300 ppm.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Technology Innovation Program (or
Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program) (20011336,
Development of high reliability high durability adhesive film and large
area coating process technology with high elasticity) funded By the
385
Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387
Fig. 9. Transmission spectrum of LSC-OPV device.
Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea) and was also
supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the NRF
funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2018R1D1A1B07043759).
Also, this work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT)
(No.2019R1A2C1005805) and was supported by the Korea Institute of
energy technology evaluation and planning (KETEP) and the ministry of
trade, industry & energy(MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No.
20194030202320).
F. Mateen, et al. Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387

Table 2
Performance parameters of the LSC-OPV devices under 1-sun illumination with respect to the concentration of Yellow 10GN. LSC-OPV-1: 100 ppm; LSC-OPV-2:
200 ppm; LSC-OPV-3: 300 ppm.
Sample VOC (mV) ISC (mA) FF (%) G ηopt (%) ηPCE (%) C

LSC-OPV-1 829 ± 4 15.7 ± 0.6 30.8 ± 1 16.6 8.1 ± 0.1 0.16 ± 0.04 1.35
LSC-OPV-2 825 ± 4 16.6 ± 0.2 30.4 ± 4 16.6 8.5 ± 0.2 0.17 ± 0.01 1.41
LSC-OPV-3 835 ± 5 15.3 ± 0.3 30.7 ± 2 16.6 7.9 ± 0.3 0.15 ± 0.02 0.31

Table 3
Average visible transmission (AVT), color rendering index (CRI) and CIE(L* a*
b*) coordinates of LSC devices.
Sample AVT (%) L a* b* CRI
LSC-OPV-1 86.2 94.6 −17.9 102.3 20.1
LSC-OPV-2 85.0 94.1 −17.5 102.9 19.4
LSC-OPV-3 84.3 93.6 −17.0 103.2 18.8
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.06.104.
References
Albers, P.T., Bastiaansen, C.W., Debije, M.G., 2013. Dual waveguide patterned lumines-
cent solar concentrators. Sol. Energy 95, 216–223.
Aste, N., Buzzetti, M., Del Pero, C., Fusco, R., Leonforte, F., Testa, D., 2019. Triggering a
large scale luminescent solar concentrators market: The smart window project. J.
Cleaner Prod. 219, 35–45.
Bailey, S.T., Lokey, G.E., Hanes, M.S., Shearer, J.D., McLafferty, J.B., Beaumont, G.T.,
Baseler, T.T., Layhue, J.M., Broussard, D.R., Zhang, Y.-Z., 2007. Optimized excitation
energy transfer in a three-dye luminescent solar concentrator. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 91 (1), 67–75.
Barik, P., Basu, J.K., 2019. Gold nanorod induced enhanced efficiency in luminescent
solar concentrator device. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09606.
Bergren, M.R., Makarov, N.S., Ramasamy, K., Jackson, A., Guglielmetti, R., McDaniel, H.,
2018. High-performance CuInS2 quantum dot laminated glass luminescent solar
concentrators for windows. ACS Energy Lett. 3 (3), 520–525.
Bomm, J., Büchtemann, A., Chatten, A.J., Bose, R., Farrell, D.J., Chan, N.L., Xiao, Y.,
Slooff, L.H., Meyer, T., Meyer, A., 2011. Fabrication and full characterization of state-
of-the-art quantum dot luminescent solar concentrators. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
95 (8), 2087–2094.
Bradshaw, L.R., Knowles, K.E., McDowall, S., Gamelin, D.R., 2015. Nanocrystals for lu-
minescent solar concentrators. Nano Lett. 15 (2), 1315–1323.
Brennan, L.J., Purcell-Milton, F., McKenna, B., Watson, T.M., Gun'ko, Y.K., Evans, R.C.,
2018. Large area quantum dot luminescent solar concentrators for use with dye-
sensitised solar cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 6 (6), 2671–2680.
Bronstein, N.D., Yao, Y., Xu, L., O’Brien, E., Powers, A.S., Ferry, V.E., Alivisatos, A.P.,
Nuzzo, R.G., 2015. Quantum dot luminescent concentrator cavity exhibiting 30-fold
concentration. ACS Photonics 2 (11), 1576–1583.
Chander, N., Khan, A., Chandrasekhar, P., Thouti, E., Swami, S.K., Dutta, V., Komarala,
V.K., 2014. Reduced ultraviolet light induced degradation and enhanced light har-
vesting using YVO4: Eu3+ down-shifting nano-phosphor layer in organometal halide
perovskite solar cells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 105 (3), 033904.
Christie, R.M., Lui, C.-H., 1999. Studies of fluorescent dyes: part 1. An investigation of the
electronic spectral properties of substituted coumarins. Dyes Pigm. 42 (1), 85–93.
De Boer, D.K., 2010. Optimizing wavelength-selective filters for luminescent solar con-
centrators, Photonics for Solar Energy Systems III. International Society for Optics
and Photonics, p. 77250Q.
Debije, M., Broer, D., Bastiaansen, C., 2007. Effect of dye alignment on the output of a
luminescent solar concentrator, Proceedings of the 22nd European photovoltaic solar
energy conference, pp. 87–89.
Debije, M.G., Verbunt, P.P., 2012. Thirty years of luminescent solar concentrator re-
search: solar energy for the built environment. Adv. Energy Mater. 2 (1), 12–35.
Debije, M.G., Verbunt, P.P., Nadkarni, P.J., Velate, S., Bhaumik, K., Nedumbamana, S.,
Rowan, B.C., Richards, B.S., Hoeks, T.L., 2011. Promising fluorescent dye for solar
energy conversion based on a perylene perinone. Appl. Opt. 50 (2), 163–169.
Devabhaktuni, V., Alam, M., Depuru, S.S.S.R., Green II, R.C., Nims, D., Near, C., 2013.
Solar energy: Trends and enabling technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19,
555–564.
Donovalová, J., Cigáň, M., Stankovičová, H., Gašpar, J., Danko, M., Gáplovský, A.,
Hrdlovič, P., 2012. Spectral properties of substituted coumarins in solution and
polymer matrices. Molecules 17 (3), 3259–3276.
Drake, J., Lesiecki, M., Sansregret, J., Thomas, W., 1982. Organic dyes in PMMA in a
planar luminescent solar collector: a performance evaluation. Appl. Opt. 21 (16),
2945–2952.
Dubois, A., Canva, M., Brun, A., Chaput, F., Boilot, J.-P., 1996. Photostability of dye
molecules trapped in solid matrices. Appl. Opt. 35 (18), 3193–3199.
El-Bashir, S., AlHarbi, O., AlSalhi, M., 2013. Thin-film LSCs based on PMMA nanohybrid
coatings: device optimization and outdoor performance. Int. J. Photoenergy, 2013.
Griffini, G., 2019. Host matrix materials for luminescent solar concentrators: recent
achievements and forthcoming challenges. Front. Mater. 6, 29.
Griffini, G., Levi, M., Turri, S., 2015. Thin-film luminescent solar concentrators: A device
study towards rational design. Renewable Energy 78, 288–294.
Ha, S.-J., Kang, J.-H., Choi, D.H., Nam, S.K., Reichmanis, E., Moon, J.H., 2018.
Upconversion-assisted dual-band luminescent solar concentrator coupled for high
power conversion efficiency photovoltaic systems. ACS Photonics 5 (9), 3621–3627.
Hernandez-Noyola, H., Potterveld, D.H., Holt, R.J., Darling, S.B., 2012. Optimizing lu-
minescent solar concentrator design. Energy Environ. Sci. 5 (2), 5798–5802.
Hill, S.K., Connell, R., Peterson, C., Hollinger, J., Hillmyer, M.A., Kortshagen, U., Ferry,
V.E., 2018. Silicon quantum dot-poly (methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites with
reduced light scattering for luminescent solar concentrators. ACS Photonics 6 (1),
170–180.
Iasilli, G., Francischello, R., Lova, P., Silvano, S., Surace, A., Pesce, G., Alloisio, M.,
Patrini, M., Shimizu, M., Comoretto, D., 2019. Luminescent solar concentrators:
boosted optical efficiency by polymer dielectric mirrors. Mater. Chem. Front. 3 (3),
429–436.
Kabir, E., Kumar, P., Kumar, S., Adelodun, A.A., Kim, K.-H., 2018. Solar energy: Potential
and future prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 894–900.
Kaniyoor, A., McKenna, B., Comby, S., Evans, R.C., 2016. Design and response of high-
efficiency, planar, doped luminescent solar concentrators using organic-inorganic di-
ureasil waveguides. Adv. Opt. Mater. 4 (3), 444–456.
Kannan, N., Vakeesan, D., 2016. Solar energy for future world:-A review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 62, 1092–1105.
Khan, J., Arsalan, M.H., 2016. Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity
generation–A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 414–425.
Krumer, Z., Pera, S.J., van Dijk-Moes, R.J., Zhao, Y., de Brouwer, A.F., Groeneveld, E., van
Sark, W.G., Schropp, R.E., de Mello Donegá, C., 2013. Tackling self-absorption in
luminescent solar concentrators with type-II colloidal quantum dots. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 111, 57–65.
Lakowicz, J.R., 2013. Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Li, C., Chen, W., Wu, D., Quan, D., Zhou, Z., Hao, J., Qin, J., Li, Y., He, Z., Wang, K., 2015.
Large stokes shift and high efficiency luminescent solar concentrator incorporated
with CuInS 2/ZnS quantum dots. Sci. Rep. 5, 17777.
Li, G., Shrotriya, V., Huang, J., Yao, Y., Moriarty, T., Emery, K., Yang, Y., 2011. High-
efficiency solution processable polymer photovoltaic cells by self-organization of
polymer blends, Materials For Sustainable Energy: A Collection of Peer-Reviewed
Research and Review Articles from Nature. Publishing Group. World Scientific, pp.
80–84.
Li, H., Wu, K., Lim, J., Song, H.-J., Klimov, V.I., 2016. Doctor-blade deposition of
quantum dots onto standard window glass for low-loss large-area luminescent solar
concentrators. Nat. Energy 1 (12), 16157.
Li, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Dong, R., Luscombe, C.K., 2019. Review on the role of
polymers in luminescent solar concentrators. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 57
(3), 201–215.
Liu, G., Mazzaro, R., Wang, Y., Zhao, H., Vomiero, A., 2019. High efficiency sandwich
structure luminescent solar concentrators based on colloidal quantum dots. Nano
Energy 60, 119–126.
Lucarelli, J., Lessi, M., Manzini, C., Minei, P., Bellina, F., Pucci, A., 2016. N-alkyl dike-
topyrrolopyrrole-based fluorophores for luminescent solar concentrators: Effect of
the alkyl chain on dye efficiency. Dyes Pigm. 135, 154–162.
Mateen, F., Ali, M., Lee, S.Y., Jeong, S.H., Ko, M.J., Hong, S.-K., 2019a. Tandem struc-
tured luminescent solar concentrator based on inorganic carbon quantum dots and
organic dyes. Sol. Energy 190, 488–494.
Mateen, F., Ali, M., Oh, H., Hong, S.-K., 2019b. Nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dot
based luminescent solar concentrator coupled with polymer dispersed liquid crystal
device for smart management of solar spectrum. Sol. Energy 178, 48–55.
Mateen, F., Oh, H., Jung, W., Binns, M., Hong, S.-K., 2017. Metal nanoparticles based
stack structured plasmonic luminescent solar concentrator. Sol. Energy 155,
934–941.
Mateen, F., Oh, H., Jung, W., Lee, S.Y., Kikuchi, H., Hong, S.-K., 2018. Polymer dispersed
liquid crystal device with integrated luminescent solar concentrator. Liq. Cryst. 45
(4), 498–506.
Mateen, F., Oh, H., Kang, J., Lee, S.Y., Hong, S.-K., 2019c. Improvement in the perfor-
mance of luminescent solar concentrator using array of cylindrical optical fibers.
Renewable Energy 138, 691–696.
Meinardi, F., McDaniel, H., Carulli, F., Colombo, A., Velizhanin, K.A., Makarov, N.S.,
Simonutti, R., Klimov, V.I., Brovelli, S., 2015. Highly efficient large-area colourless
luminescent solar concentrators using heavy-metal-free colloidal quantum dots. Nat.

386
F. Mateen, et al.
Nanotechnol. 10 (10), 878–885.
Nam, M., Noh, H.Y., Kang, J.-H., Cho, J., Min, B.K., Shim, J.W., Ko, D.-H., 2019. Semi-
transparent quaternary organic blends for advanced photovoltaic applications. Nano
Energy 58, 652–659.
Pandey, A., Tyagi, V., Jeyraj, A., Selvaraj, L., Rahim, N., Tyagi, S., 2016. Recent advances
in solar photovoltaic systems for emerging trends and advanced applications. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 859–884.
Peng, M., Hou, S., Wu, H., Yang, Q., Cai, X., Yu, X., Yan, K., Hu, H., Zhu, F., Zou, D., 2014.
Integration of fiber dye-sensitized solar cells with luminescent solar concentrators for
high power output. J. Mater. Chem. A 2 (4), 926–932.
Preat, J., Jacquemin, D., Wathelet, V., André, J.-M., Perpète, E.A., 2006. TD-DFT in-
vestigation of the UV spectra of pyranone derivatives. J. Phys. Chem. A 110 (26),
8144–8150.
Purcell-Milton, F., Gun'ko, Y.K., 2012. Quantum dots for luminescent solar concentrators.
J. Mater. Chem. 22 (33), 16687–16697.
Rafiee, M., Chandra, S., Ahmed, H., McCormack, S.J., 2019. An overview of various
configurations of Luminescent Solar Concentrators for photovoltaic applications. Opt.
Mater. 91, 212–227.
Reich, N.v., Van Sark, W., Turkenburg, W., 2011. Charge yield potential of indoor-op-
erated solar cells incorporated into Product Integrated Photovoltaic (PIPV).
Renewable Energy 36(2), 642–647.
Reinders, A., Kishore, R., Slooff, L., Eggink, W., 2018. Luminescent solar concentrator
photovoltaic designs. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 57 (8S3), 08RD10.
Seybold, G., Wagenblast, G., 1989. New perylene and violanthrone dyestuffs for fluor-
escent collectors. Dyes Pigm. 11 (4), 303–317.
Shcherbatyuk, G., Inman, R., Wang, C., Winston, R., Ghosh, S., 2010. Viability of using
near infrared PbS quantum dots as active materials in luminescent solar con-
centrators. Appl. Phys. Lett. 96 (19), 191901.
Slooff, L.H., Bende, E.E., Burgers, A.R., Budel, T., Pravettoni, M., Kenny, R.P., Dunlop,
E.D., Büchtemann, A., 2008. A luminescent solar concentrator with 7.1% power
conversion efficiency. Physica Status Solidi (RRL)–Rapid Res. Lett. 2 (6), 257–259.
Steim, R., Ameri, T., Schilinsky, P., Waldauf, C., Dennler, G., Scharber, M., Brabec, C.J.,
2011. Organic photovoltaics for low light applications. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
387
Solar Energy 207 (2020) 379–387
95 (12), 3256–3261.
Sumner, R., Eiselt, S., Kilburn, T.B., Erickson, C., Carlson, B., Gamelin, D.R., McDowall, S.,
Patrick, D.L., 2017. Analysis of optical losses in high-efficiency CuInS2-based nano-
crystal luminescent solar concentrators: balancing absorption versus scattering. J.
Phys. Chem. C 121 (6), 3252–3260.
Tummeltshammer, C., Portnoi, M., Mitchell, S.A., Lee, A.-T., Kenyon, A.J., Tabor, A.B.,
Papakonstantinou, I., 2017. On the ability of förster resonance energy transfer to
enhance luminescent solar concentrator efficiency. Nano Energy 32, 263–270.
Vasiliev, M., Alameh, K., 2019. Recent developments in solar energy-harvesting tech-
nologies for building integration and distributed energy generation. Energies 12 (6),
1080.
Verbunt, P.P., Tsoi, S., Debije, M.G., Boer, D.J., Bastiaansen, C.W., Lin, C.-W., de Boer,
D.K., 2012. Increased efficiency of luminescent solar concentrators after application
of organic wavelength selective mirrors. Opt. Express 20 (105), A655–A668.
Wang, Z., Zhao, X., Guo, Z., Miao, P., Gong, X., 2018. Carbon dots based nanocomposite
thin film for highly efficient luminescent solar concentrators. Org. Electron. 62,
284–289.
Xu, L., Yao, Y., Bronstein, N.D., Li, L., Alivisatos, A.P., Nuzzo, R.G., 2016. Enhanced
photon collection in luminescent solar concentrators with distributed Bragg re-
flectors. ACS Photonics 3 (2), 278–285.
Yang, C., Liu, D., Bates, M., Barr, M.C., Lunt, R.R., 2019. How to accurately report
transparent solar cells. Joule 3 (8), 1803–1809.
Yoon, J., Li, L., Semichaevsky, A.V., Ryu, J.H., Johnson, H.T., Nuzzo, R.G., Rogers, J.A.,
2011. Flexible concentrator photovoltaics based on microscale silicon solar cells
embedded in luminescent waveguides. Nat. Commun. 2, 343.
Zhao, H., Benetti, D., Jin, L., Zhou, Y., Rosei, F., Vomiero, A., 2016. Absorption en-
hancement in “giant” core/alloyed-shell quantum dots for luminescent solar con-
centrator. Small 12 (38), 5354–5365.
Zhou, W., Wang, M.-C., Zhao, X., 2015. Poly (methyl methacrylate)(PMMA) doped with
DCJTB for luminescent solar concentrator applications. Sol. Energy 115, 569–576.
Zhou, Y., Benetti, D., Tong, X., Jin, L., Wang, Z.M., Ma, D., Zhao, H., Rosei, F., 2018.
Colloidal carbon dots based highly stable luminescent solar concentrators. Nano
Energy 44, 378–387.