coatings

Article

Condition Assessment of Solar Modules by Flash Test and

Article
Condition Assessment
Electroluminescence of Solar Modules by Flash Test and
Test
Electroluminescence Test
István Bodnár, Dávid Matusz-Kalász *, Rafael Ruben Boros and Róbert Lipták
István Bodnár, Dávid Matusz-Kalász *, Rafael Ruben Boros and Róbert Lipták
Institute of Physics and Electrical Engineering, University of Miskolc; 3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary;
vegybod@uni-miskolc.hu (I.B.); elkruben@uni-miskolc.hu (R.R.B.); elkrobi@uni-miskolc.hu (R.L.)
Institute of Physics and Electrical Engineering, University of Miskolc, 3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary;
* Correspondence: elkmkd@uni-miskolc.hu
vegybod@uni-miskolc.hu (I.B.); elkruben@uni-miskolc.hu (R.R.B.); elkrobi@uni-miskolc.hu (R.L.)
* Correspondence: elkmkd@uni-miskolc.hu
Abstract: The Hungarian society and the Hungarian state are constantly increasing their solar ca-
pacity.
Abstract:MoreTheand more solar
Hungarian powerand
society plants
the are being putstate
Hungarian into are
operation. Theincreasing
constantly largest of these
their has a
solar
100 MW peak capacity. Such power plants do not require constant maintenance. However,
capacity. More and more solar power plants are being put into operation. The largest of these has a in the
case of low
100 MW productivity,
peak capacity. Sucha conditional
power plants assessment is required.
do not require constantThe reason for However,
maintenance. production in loss can
the case
also beproductivity,
of low manufacturing, installation,
a conditional and operational
assessment errors.
is required. The A flyingfordrone
reason was used
production loss for
canfinding
also be
failures by thermographic
manufacturing, installation,scouting. Furthermore,
and operational errors. electroluminescent
A flying drone was (EL) used and flash tests
for finding giveby
failures a
comprehensive view of the real state of the modules in a mobile laboratory. We had
thermographic scouting. Furthermore, electroluminescent (EL) and flash tests give a comprehensive the opportunity
to summarize
view these
of the real statetest results
of the of more
modules in athan a thousand
mobile modules
laboratory. We had operating in a solartopower
the opportunity plant.
summarize
The
thesereport on theofpower
test results plantashows
more than thatmodules
thousand a significant part ofinthe
operating modules
a solar powerbecame unusable
plant. The reportinon
a
short time. plant
the power Aftershows
four years,
that a10% of the 260
significant partWp
of modules
the modulessuffered
became a performance
unusable in areduction
short time. of more
After
than 10%. 10% of the 260 Wp modules suffered a performance reduction of more than 10%.
four years,

Keywords:
Keywords: condition;
condition; thermography;
thermography; electroluminescence
electroluminescence



Citation:
I.; Matusz-Kalász,
Bodnár,


D.; Boros, R.R.; Lipták, R. Condition
Assessment
Citation: of Solar
Bodnár, I.; Modules by
Matusz-Kalász,
Flash
D.; Test R.R.;
Boros, and Electroluminescence
Lipták, R. Condition 1. Introduction
Test. Coatings
Assessment of2021,
Solar11, x.
Modules by Since the advent of solar panels, solar power plants have been installed at increasing
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
Flash Test and Electroluminescence power sizes.
sizes. Over
Overthe
thelast
lastten
tenyears,
years,the capacity
the capacity built hashas
built grown
grown exponentially.
exponentially. In Hungary,
In Hun-
Test. Coatings 2021, 11, 1361.
it has it
gary, grown almostalmost
has grown ten-fold in 5 years
ten-fold in 5(from
years215 to 2001
(from 215 toMW)2001andMW)is set
andto is
increase fivefold
set to increase
Academic Editor: Chen Tei-Chen
https://doi.org/10.3390/
in this decade
fivefold in this (Figure 1). However,
decade (Figure it should
1). However, be borne
it should in mind
be borne that solar
in mind cells cells
that solar age dueage
coatings11111361
to their
due semiconductor
to their semiconductorelectronics, so their
electronics, efficiency
so their and lifetime
efficiency are constantly
and lifetime reduced
are constantly re-
Received: 19 October 2021
duringduring
duced use. Several test methods
use. Several are available
test methods to assesstothe
are available condition
assess of solar cells
the condition (thermal
of solar cells
Accepted: Editor:
Academic 2 November
Chen 2021
Tei-Chen
camera test,
(thermal flash test, electroluminescence
camera test), however,
flash test, electroluminescence it is
test), not an easy
however, it istask
notto animplement
easy task
Published: 4 November 2021
Received: 19 October 2021
real-time diagnosis and clearly demonstrate the time course of efficacy
to implement real-time diagnosis and clearly demonstrate the time course of efficacy loss [1]. Therelossare
Publisher’s
Accepted: Note: MDPI
2 November stays neu-
2021
theoretical models that try to draw conclusions from the production
[1]. There are theoretical models that try to draw conclusions from the production and the and the irradiation
tral with 4regard
Published: to jurisdictional
November 2021
data of the data
irradiation givenofarea, but inarea,
the given thesebutcases the efficiency
in these cases thereduction
efficiencyofreduction
other equipment
of other
claims in published maps and institu- (inverters,
equipment wires) is also
(inverters, added
wires) [2,3].
is also These
added models
[2,3]. Thesecan be refined
models can beif refined
the solar cellssolar
if the are
tional affiliations.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
examined separately, for example by electrical measurements
cells are examined separately, for example by electrical measurements [4,5]. [4,5].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Figure 1. The increase of total solar capacity in the last decade in Hungary.
Figure 1. The increase of total solar capacity in the last decade in Hungary.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ During our research work, we conducted a survey of the condition of solar modules
4.0/). in a solar power plant (in 2020, 4 years after commissioning) that has been operating for

Coatings 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2021, 11, 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11111361 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 2 of 13

5 years. The power plant contains almost 39,000 1.6 m2 panels of standard size. The power
plant operators regularly calculated the theoretical electricity production based on the
radiation data typical of the area. There was often a discrepancy of more than 10% between
the measured data and the expected values [6–9]. To find out the reasons, thermography
assessments were made on several occasions [10,11]. For hundreds of solar modules, some
cells have been found to have 15–40 ◦ C higher temperatures than others. The affected solar
panels have been removed. To provide reference data, additional solar cells considered
to be in good working order (temperature distribution < 15 ◦ C) were also removed. Our
study summarizes the results obtained. The installed solar panels contain 60 cells. In their
first 10 years of operation, the maximum allowable efficiency loss is 10%, which is equal
to 6 cell power outages. This can also result from a solder fault, which primarily means a
failure due to a contact fault. In the case of 30 cells, cell damage without cracking is allowed,
which can be realized primarily by recrystallization due to temperature fluctuations during
operation. Total burnout of three cells is also acceptable within the threshold limit. New
cracks can form in up to 12 cells, which are likely to result in current loss, power loss, and
certainly production loss. For three cells, a cobweb-like crack is acceptable. In the case of
30 cells, cracks without current loss and power loss are allowed. Cracks can occur in 6 cells,
which cause less than 20% loss of energy production, and cracks with more than 20%
loss in production can also be allowed in 6 cells. Given that solar cells have operated for
less than five years since their installation, a maximum of half of these phenomena could
have occurred assuming linear natural aging. For hundreds of modules, we experienced
a faster-than-expected decrease in performance and rapid aging. We believe that this
research highlights the fact that we need to be more careful in the future when installing
and operating our solar power plants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Mobile Laboratory
The solar panels were tested in an accredited mobile laboratory. The measuring
devices were placed in the trunk of a van. This van works as a light-tight black-box where
housed inside is a digital camera (JENOPTIC VarioCAM, Jena, Germany) and a sample
holder. The interior is spacious enough to accommodate 1.64 m × 0.99 m modules. Thanks
to this mobile and compact solution, it is easy to survey solar systems on site, saving
a significant amount of money and time. In addition, the laboratory is multifunctional,
suitable for flash and electroluminescent test. The spectrum produced by the flash extends
from 300 to 1200 nm and it is compatible with the standard IEC 60904-9. Irradiance non-
uniformity is under 1% in the entire test area. After manually connecting the module
cables, the device performed a 60-ms long flash. The computer determined the electrical
parameters and the I–V characteristic curve of the solar modules. The measurement time is
under 5 seconds.
The EL images were captured automatically after I–V measurement without any
additional work required by the operator. During the EL test, the measurement device
was connected to a DC power supply so that the module automatically receives its rated
voltage and current for light emission. Although the resolution of the camera is high, the
resolution of captured pictures is 3166 × 1920 pixels, so that every small mistake can be
noticed in the images. The EL system took a separate image of each wafer. After scanning
all 60 wafers one by one, the measurement device assembled the many little ones into a
large image that showed the condition of the entire panel.

2.1.1. Thermal Imaging

After the inspection, our department received a dozen modules as a gift. We performed
further tests on them, as images taken at the power plant were lost. Thermal imaging is a
suitable method for detecting defects or surface contaminants [10–12]. This module also
comes from the examined solar power plant. The flash test result was: 267.69 W·MPP
(maximum power point) power, 34.67 V·MPP voltage, 7.72 A·MPP current. Based on the
Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

After the inspection, our department received a dozen modules as a gift. We per-
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 formed further tests on them, as images taken at the power plant were lost. Thermal 3 ofim-
13
aging is a suitable method for detecting defects or surface contaminants [10–12]. This
module also comes from the examined solar power plant. The flash test result was: 267.69
W·MPP (maximum power point) power, 34.67 V·MPP voltage, 7.72 A·MPP current. Based
test results,
on the it can beitstated
test results, can be that the panel
stated waspanel
that the in good
wascondition. However, dirt
in good condition. deposited
However, dirt
in the corners can cause damage. The two contaminated corners shown in Figures
deposited in the corners can cause damage. The two contaminated corners shown in Fig- 2 and 3
were covered only by a thin layer of deposited dust.
ures 2 and 3 were covered only by a thin layer of deposited dust.

Figure 2. Thermal image of a dirty solar module.

At 2:00 pm on September 28, 2021, we performed outdoor measurements at the Uni-

versity of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary. The open circuit voltage of 33.38 V and a short-
circuit current of 6.46 A were measured at a global radiation value of 792 W. The module
warmed up in 15 minutes with an average surface temperature of 40 °C. The ambient
temperature was 21.3 °C. In the two corners, where dirt deposition was observed (Figure
3), the temperature increased significantly. This is explained by the fact that the dirt ob-
scures the cells, so they behave like resistance (DC load) instead of generating electricity.
The value measured with a contact thermometer in the upper corner was more than dou-
ble (73.1 °C) the average. The reference value was measured in the middle of the top row.
Three cells in the bottom corner were also significantly covered with dirt. Overheating
was observed for all three cells. In addition, performance degradation should also be men-
tioned. The dirty modules tested in the solar power plant were able to produce a 10%–
Figure
Figure
20% 2. Thermal
2.
lowerThermal image of
image
performance of[4,5,13–19].
aa dirty
dirty solar
solar module.
module.

At 2:00 pm on September 28, 2021, we performed outdoor measurements at the Uni-

versity of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary. The open circuit voltage of 33.38 V and a short-
circuit current of 6.46 A were measured at a global radiation value of 792 W. The module
warmed up in 15 minutes with an average surface temperature of 40 °C. The ambient
temperature was 21.3 °C. In the two corners, where dirt deposition was observed (Figure
3), the temperature increased significantly. This is explained by the fact that the dirt ob-
scures the cells, so they behave like resistance (DC load) instead of generating electricity.
The value measured with a contact thermometer in the upper corner was more than dou-
ble (73.1 °C) the average. The reference value was measured in the middle of the top row.
Three cells in the bottom corner were also significantly covered with dirt. Overheating
was observed (a)for all three cells. In addition,(b) performance degradation should also be men-
tioned.3.The
Figure dirty modules
(a) Deposited tested
dirt in the in the (b)
top corner; solar power dirt
Deposited plant
in were able corner.
the bottom to produce a 10%–
20% lower performance [4,5,13–19].
At 2:004 pm
Figure showson the
September
additional 28,tests
2021,thatweprove
performed outdoor of
the correctness measurements
Figure 2. In theat first
the
University of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary. The open circuit voltage of 33.38
step, we placed a tree branch in front of the panel (Figure 4a). The tree branch caused V and a short-
circuit current
moderate coolingof 6.46
in a A were measured
significant area as atthea sunrays
global radiation
could notvalue
reachofthe
792solar
W. The
cell module
surface.
warmed up in 15 minutes with an average surface temperature of 40 C. The ambient ◦

temperature was 21.3 ◦ C. In the two corners, where dirt deposition was observed (Figure 3),
the temperature increased significantly. This is explained by the fact that the dirt obscures
the cells, so they behave like resistance (DC load) instead of generating electricity. The
value measured with a contact thermometer in the upper corner was more than double
(73.1 ◦ C) the average. The reference value was measured in the middle of the top row.
Three cells in the bottom corner were also significantly covered with dirt. Overheating
was observed for all three cells. In addition, performance degradation should also be
mentioned. The (a) dirty modules tested in (b)the solar power plant were able to produce a
10%–20% lower
Figure 3. (a) performance
Deposited dirt in the[4,5,13–19].
top corner; (b) Deposited dirt in the bottom corner.
Figure 4 shows the additional tests that prove the correctness of Figure 2. In the first
step, Figure
we placed
4 showsa tree
thebranch in front
additional testsofthat
theprove
panelthe
(Figure 4a). The
correctness tree branch
of Figure caused
2. In the first
moderate cooling in a significant area as the sunrays could not reach the
step, we placed a tree branch in front of the panel (Figure 4a). The tree branch caused solar cell surface.
However,
moderate in the case
cooling in aofsignificant
cells that were completely
area as shaded,
the sunrays couldintense warming
not reach occurred.
the solar The
cell surface.
explanation is the same as for the effect of surface contamination. As a second step, we
cleaned the corners causing them to cool (Figure 4b). Finally, we removed the tree branch
(Figure 4c).
Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

Coatings 2021, 11, 1361
However, in the case of cells that were completely shaded, intense warming occurred. The
explanation is the same as for the effect of surface contamination. As a second step,4 of
we13
cleaned the corners causing them to cool (Figure 4b). Finally, we removed the tree branch
(Figure 4c).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure4.4.(a)
(a)Tree
Treebranch
branchplaced
placedininfront
frontofofthe
theexamined
examinedsolar
solarmodule;
module;(b)
(b)The
Themodule
moduleafter
aftercleaning
cleaning
the
thecorners;
corners;(c) (c)The
Themodule
modulewith
withthethecooled
cooledcorners
cornersafter
afterthe
thetree
treebranch
branchwas
wasremoved.
removed.

2.1.2.
2.1.2.Flash
FlashTestTest
Table
Table11 shows
shows the electrotechnical
electrotechnicalresults
resultsand
andthe
theFigure
Figure 5 shows
5 shows thethe
I–VI–V character-
characteristics
istics of several
of several flashThe
flash tests. tests. The performance
performance of the mostofmalfunctioning
the most malfunctioning
module (PV23160) module
was
(PV23160)
only 26.3%was only
of the 26.3% of the manufacturer’s
manufacturer’s data. This valuedata.
is in This
sharpvalue is inwith
contrast sharpthecontrast with
performance
the performance
guarantee, guarantee,
and module wasand modulecompletely
virtually was virtually completely
damaged. Thedamaged.
value of theThemaximum
value of
the maximum operating point voltage was only one-fourths of the
operating point voltage was only one-fourths of the manufacturer’s value. However, manufacturer’s value.
the
However,
value of thetheoperating
value of the operating
point currentpoint current was proportionally
was proportionally much better, nearmuchtobetter, near
the normal
tovalue.
the normal
Based value.
on theBased on the electrotechnical
electrotechnical parameters, it parameters,
can be seenitthat
can abesignificant
seen that adecrease
signif-
in the
icant voltageinof
decrease thethe module
voltage canmodule
of the cause some cell some
can cause damage celland theirand
damage destruction. The
their destruc-
voltage
tion. The of PV73760
voltage and PV02310
of PV73760 modulesmodules
and PV02310 was low, wasonly about
low, onlyone-thirds of the normal
about one-thirds of the
value. value.
normal The maximal
The maximalpowerpowerof bothof was
bothalso
was low,
also only 55.5%55.5%
low, only and 69.4%.
and 69.4%.PV41140 and
PV41140
PV64260 modules were in a good condition according to the electrotechnical
and PV64260 modules were in a good condition according to the electrotechnical param- parameters
but over
eters the 10%
but over the 10%limit. Their
limit. maximal
Their maximal power
powerwaswas87.2%
87.2%andand89.2%.
89.2%.This
Thisassumption
assumptionis
issupported
supportedby bythe
theelectroluminescence
electroluminescencetest test(Figures
(Figures6–11)
6–11)[12,20–24].
[12,20–24].
InInthe
thecase
caseofofaawell-functioning
well-functioningmodule
module(PV50239),
(PV50239),we wemay
mayevenevenexperience
experienceaaslight
slight
overwork(103.5%).
overwork (103.5%).Peak Peak power
power is above
is above thethe upper
upper tolerance
tolerance limit
limit (260(260
WpWp + 3%).+ 3%). All
All pa-
parameters of the module correspond to the information on the
rameters of the module correspond to the information on the datasheet. The outperfor-datasheet. The outperfor-
mancecan
mance canalso
alsobebetraced
tracedback
backtotocurrent
currentvalues,
values,that
thatare
arehigher
higherthan
thanexpected.
expected.For Foreach
each
module, the data were recorded, and their distribution will be described
module, the data were recorded, and their distribution will be described in a later chapter. in a later chapter.

Electrotechnical
Table 1.Table parameters
1. Electrotechnical of the examined
parameters modulesmodules
of the examined during the flashthe
during test.
flash test.

Parameter
Parameter PV23160 PV73760
PV23160 PV02310
PV73760 PV02310PV41140 PV64260 PV50239
PV41140 PV64260 PV50239 Datasheet
Datasheet **
Actualpower
Actual power(Wp)
(Wp) 57.1957.19 114.76
114.76 160.58 188.34
160.58 188.34 190.02
190.02 262.43
262.43 ––
Maximal operating(MPP)
Maximal operating (MPP) power (Wp)
power (Wp) 68.2868.28 144.23
144.23 180.50
180.50 226.74
226.74 231.92
231.92 268.99
268.99 260 ±±3%
260 3%
Maximal operating (MPP) voltage (V) 9.52 20.91 22.29 32.90 34.09 35.08 34.80
Maximal operating (MPP) voltage (V) 9.52 20.91 22.29 32.90 34.09 35.08 34.80
Maximal operating (MPP) current (A) 7.17 6.90 8.10 7.38 7.63 7.67 7.47
Maximal operating
Open (MPP)(V)
circuit voltage current (A) 34.317.17 35.54 6.90 26.698.10 7.38
37.09 7.63
36.82 7.67
37.63 7.47
37.70
Open circuitcurrent
Short circuit voltage
(A)(V) 7.8534.31 8.32 35.54 8.6526.69 37.09
8.40 36.82
8.00 37.63
8.63 37.70
8.52
ShortFill factorcurrent
circuit (%) (A) 25.407.85 83.60 8.32 78.208.65 86.10
8.40 89.60
8.00 88.70
8.63 –
8.52
2 , module temperature 25 ◦ C.
Fill factor (%) 25.40
* Irradiance 83.60
1000 W/m 78.20 86.10 89.60 88.70 –
* Irradiance 1000 W/m2, module temperature 25 °C.

Coatings 2021, 11, 1361
module (Figure 5a) and PV73760 module (Figure 5b) does not correspond to the charac-
teristics of a fault-free solar module; it is far from both the ideal and the practical curve.
In case of PV02310 module (Figure 5c), it can be observed the effect of the non-functioning
cells in two whole rows (Figure 8). The curve of PV41140 and PV64260 module shows,
that these modules operate well with a small-scale power reduction (Figure 5d–e). In Fig- 5 of 13
ure 5f, the practical characteristic curve of the solar module (PV50239) can already be
clearly recognized [13].

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13

(e) (f)
cells in the second and fifth row (F2, G2, F5 and G5). Therefore, those lines do not generate
Figure 5.
5. I–V
I–VThe
electricity.
Figure characteristics
voltage is of
characteristics of(a)
(a)PV23160
27.4% module; (b)(b)
of the manufacturer’s
PV23160 module; PV73760 module;
data.
PV73760 Many(c)cells
module; PV02310
(c) module;
are in
PV02310 good (d) (d)
condi-
module;
PV41140
PV41140 module;
tion, butmodule; (e)
critical (e) PV64260
cracks module;
can be
PV64260 and
observed
module; (f) PV50239
inPV50239
and (f) module.
H2 and module.
C6.

2.1.3. Electroluminescence Test

During the electroluminescence tests, all the listed types (in the Introduction chapter)
of faults were detected on the solar panel. The following electroluminescent images can
be well connected to the I–V curve of the modules [12]. As in Table 1, the EL images follow
the order of the degree of damage. As the modules measure 1.64 m × 0.99 m (length ×
width), the aspect ratio is 1:14 in Figures 6–11. Firstly, Figure 6 shows the electrolumines-
cence image of PV23160, which is the most malfunctioning one. There are nonfunctioning

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
The electroluminescence
electroluminescence image
image of
of PV23160
PV23160 solar
solar module
module that
that failed
failed the
the flash
flash test.
test.

Figure 7 shows the electroluminescence image of a solar module (PV73760) whose

power was about the half of its rated peak power (144 Wp, 55.5%, Table 1) during the flash
test. Visible full cell burnout (A3), non-critical microcracks (B4, C4), critical cracks (I3) [25],
and local solder failure (B5). Several cells contain finger interruptions (e.g., A4, D3, H3)
 Figure 7 shows the electroluminescence image of a solar module (PV73760) whose
power was about the half of its rated peak power (144 Wp, 55.5%, Table 1) during the flash
test. Visible full cell burnout (A3), non-critical microcracks (B4, C4), critical cracks (I3) [25]
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 6 of 13
and local solder failure (B5). Several cells contain finger interruptions (e.g., A4, D3, H3
[26].

Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 1

local solder failure (B6). Due to the totally non-functioning two rows, the measured volt
age is 20.91 V (60.1% of normal value, Table 1). The other four rows are still able to gener
ate electricity.
Figure
Figure 7.7.Electroluminescence
Electroluminescence image
image of a of a severely
severely damaged
damaged PV73760
PV73760 solar module.
solar module.

Figure 8 shows a panel (PV02310) that can certainly come from the bottom row of a
table. Lines 1 and 2 may have been too close to the ground and shaded by the upper mod
ules of the other table. This is the result of an installation error when the distance between
the two tables was not properly determined. In addition, many cells show cracks and cob
web fractures (B3, B4, H5, I3, etc.). A cell piece detachment is observed on cell D4 and a

Figure8.8.Electroluminescence
Figure Electroluminescence image
image of PV02310
of PV02310 solar solar
modulemodule with permanently
with permanently shaded rows.
shaded rows.

Figure 9 shows the electroluminescence image of a solar panel (PV41140) that failed
to meet the expected power level. The power reduction of this module was over 10%. Th
measured maximal power was 226.7 Wp (Table 1). In Figure 9, columns E, F, and G con
tain “blind spots” caused by wide cracks, i.e., inoperable cell sections (e.g., C6, E4, F5) [25]
Many cells contain finger interruptions in the whole image (e.g., C2, D5, H5, etc.) [26] and
also several cells contain cracks (A6, B6, C4, etc.) [25–30].
 Figure 9 shows the electroluminescence image of a solar panel (PV41140) that failed
to meet the expected power level. The power reduction of this module was over 10%. Th
measured maximal power was 226.7 Wp (Table 1). In Figure 9, columns E, F, and G con
tain “blind spots” caused by wide cracks, i.e., inoperable cell sections (e.g., C6, E4, F5) [25]
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 7 of 13
Many cells contain finger interruptions in the whole image (e.g., C2, D5, H5, etc.) [26] and
also several cells contain cracks (A6, B6, C4, etc.) [25–30].

Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 1

Figure9.9.Electroluminescence
Figure Electroluminescence image
image of anofaverage
an average damaged
damaged PV41140
PV41140 solar module.
solar module.

Figure 10 shows an electroluminescence snapping of a solar panel (PV64260) show

ing signs of material defect due to dust deposition. These large dark spots appear to be in
the form of shells or funnels (A1, B1, C3, D3, etc.) Cell breakage is observed in cells B6, F
and I3 [25]. For five more wafers, a large, obligated cell element can be observed (B2, F1
G1, G6, and I6) [31–35].

Figure10.
Figure 10.Electroluminescence
Electroluminescence image
image of PV64260
of PV64260 solar module.
solar module.

Figure 11 shows the electroluminescence snapping of a solar module (PV50239

whose power was able to provide manufacturer power during the flash test. All cells ar
bright, with no cracks or breaks visible. Tiny dark spots may be explained by a materia
defect in a similar pattern on several wafers. This is not a significant manufacturing fail
ure. These small defects do not prevent the module from working properly.
 Figure 11 shows the electroluminescence snapping of a solar module (PV50239
whose power was able to provide manufacturer power during the flash test. All cells are
bright, with no cracks or breaks visible. Tiny dark spots may be explained by a materia
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 8 of 13
defect in a similar pattern on several wafers. This is not a significant manufacturing fail
ure. These small defects do not prevent the module from working properly.

Figure11.
Figure 11.Electroluminescence
Electroluminescence image
image of a of a well-functioning
well-functioning PV50239
PV50239 solar module.
solar module.

Figure 5 illustrates the resulting I–V characteristics obtained by six differently behaving
3. Results
solar modules in a flash test [12]. It is well observed that the I–V curve of PV23160 module
(FigureIt 5a)
is impossible
and PV73760 to module
report data from
(Figure 5b) more than
does not 1000 panels
correspond incharacteristics
to the as much detail as in
previous
of chapters,
a fault-free thus a statistical
solar module; summary
it is far from both the is much
ideal andmore expedient.
the practical In In
curve. this summary
case
of PV02310 module (Figure 5c), it can be observed the effect of the non-functioning cells are de
we compared the results of the flash test available for each module. Five values
rived
in two from
wholetherowsflash tests:8).MPP
(Figure The power,
curve of MPP voltage,
PV41140 open circuit
and PV64260 module voltage,
shows,MPPthat curren
these modules
and short operate
circuit well with
current. a small-scale
Moreover, power
only one reduction
value (Figure
is based 5d–e). measurement
on in-situ In Figure 5f, at the
the practical
solar power characteristic
plant, whichcurveis theof the solar
actual powermodule
value. (PV50239) can already be clearly
recognized [13].
Figure 12 shows the distribution of two value types, MPP power and actual power
The MPP
2.1.3. power values are
Electroluminescence Testderived directly from the flash test, whereas the actual powe
values are the results of the in-situ measurement. A closer look at the distribution of the
During the electroluminescence tests, all the listed types (in the Introduction chapter)
of faults were detected on the solar panel. The following electroluminescent images can
be well connected to the I–V curve of the modules [12]. As in Table 1, the EL images
follow the order of the degree of damage. As the modules measure 1.64 m × 0.99 m
(length × width), the aspect ratio is 1:14 in Figures 6–11. Firstly, Figure 6 shows the
electroluminescence image of PV23160, which is the most malfunctioning one. There are
nonfunctioning cells in the second and fifth row (F2, G2, F5 and G5). Therefore, those lines
do not generate electricity. The voltage is 27.4% of the manufacturer’s data. Many cells are
in good condition, but critical cracks can be observed in H2 and C6.
Figure 7 shows the electroluminescence image of a solar module (PV73760) whose
power was about the half of its rated peak power (144 Wp, 55.5%, Table 1) during the
flash test. Visible full cell burnout (A3), non-critical microcracks (B4, C4), critical cracks
(I3) [25], and local solder failure (B5). Several cells contain finger interruptions (e.g., A4,
D3, H3) [26].
Figure 8 shows a panel (PV02310) that can certainly come from the bottom row of
a table. Lines 1 and 2 may have been too close to the ground and shaded by the upper
modules of the other table. This is the result of an installation error when the distance
between the two tables was not properly determined. In addition, many cells show cracks
and cobweb fractures (B3, B4, H5, I3, etc.). A cell piece detachment is observed on cell D4
and a local solder failure (B6). Due to the totally non-functioning two rows, the measured
voltage is 20.91 V (60.1% of normal value, Table 1). The other four rows are still able to
generate electricity.
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 9 of 13

Figure 9 shows the electroluminescence image of a solar panel (PV41140) that failed to
meet the expected power level. The power reduction of this module was over 10%. The
measured maximal power was 226.7 Wp (Table 1). In Figure 9, columns E, F, and G contain
“blind spots” caused by wide cracks, i.e., inoperable cell sections (e.g., C6, E4, F5) [25].
Many cells contain finger interruptions in the whole image (e.g., C2, D5, H5, etc.) [26] and
also several cells contain cracks (A6, B6, C4, etc.) [25–30].
Figure 10 shows an electroluminescence snapping of a solar panel (PV64260) showing
signs of material defect due to dust deposition. These large dark spots appear to be in the
form of shells or funnels (A1, B1, C3, D3, etc.) Cell breakage is observed in cells B6, F1 and
I3 [25]. For five more wafers, a large, obligated cell element can be observed (B2, F1, G1,
Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
G6, and I6) [31–35].
Figure 11 shows the electroluminescence snapping of a solar module (PV50239) whose
power was able to provide manufacturer power during the flash test. All cells are bright,
MPPno
with power
cracksseries shows
or breaks that the
visible. Tinymaximum
dark spotsperformance
may be explained of many by apanels
material is around
defect in270a
W. Thispattern
similar was explained
on several bywafers.
the factThis
that,isunlike
not a the official manufacturing
significant data (260 Wp), many failure.modules
These
were defects
small alreadydo more
not powerful
prevent the than the others
module at the time
from working of installation. According to the
properly.
results in the third column of Table 1, the modules have a power of 260 Wp and the value
3.ofResults
the performance tolerance (3%) and measurement tolerance is 3%. This means that the
It is impossible
minimum permissible to power
reportvalue
data from
during more than 1000
installation panels
is 252.2 W,in as much
which changesdetail as in
to 244.63
previous
W with the chapters,
measuring thustolerance.
a statisticalOnsummary
the other is much
hand, themore expedient.
maximum power Inisthis summary,
267.8 W, with
we
thecompared
measuring thetolerance
results ofthisthevalue
flash test available
is 275.83 W. for each module. Five values are derived
from theTheflash
mediantests:ofMPP
MPPpower,
powerMPPseriesvoltage, open
is 259.70 Wp,circuit
and the voltage,
averageMPP MPPcurrent
power and shortis
value
circuit
250.76 current.
Wp. TheMoreover, only one is
average difference value
17.68isWpbasedandon thein-situ measurement
standard deviation is at 36.98
the solar
Wp.
power plant, which is the actual power value.
29% of the values is between of 250 and 260 W (313 modules). Around 27% of MPP power
valuesFigure 12 shows
are less the distribution
than 252.2 of two and
W (282 modules), value 16%types,
were MPP
lesspower and actual
than 244.63 W (173 power.
mod-
The MPP power values are derived directly from the flash
ules). The panels have a 90% performance guarantee for the first 10 years and antest, whereas the actual power
85%
values are theguarantee
performance results offor thethe
in-situ measurement.
next 10–25 years. After Afour
closer look10%
years, at the distribution
of the modules (107 of
the MPP power
modules) sufferedseries shows that the
a performance maximum
reduction performance
of more than 10%.of If many panels
the actual is around
power values
270
are W. Thisinto
taken wasaccount,
explained webyobtain
the fact that, unlike
a much worsethe endofficial
resultdata
after(260 Wp), many
summing modules
the data. The
were already more powerful than the others at the time of installation.
median of actual power series is 221.55 Wp, and the average actual power value is 215.68 According to
the results in the third column of Table 1, the modules have a power
Wp. The average difference of actual power series is 19.27 Wp and the standard deviation of 260 Wp and the
value
is 34.49of Wp.
the performance
3% of the values tolerance (3%) and
are between of measurement
250 and 260 Wtolerance is 3%. Around
(313 modules). This means98%
that the minimum permissible power value during installation
of MPP power values are less than 252.2 W (1043 modules) and 92% are less than is 252.2 W, which changes
244.63
to
W244.63 W with the
(976 modules). measuring76%
Furthermore, tolerance. On the other
of the modules hand, the
(811 modules) maximum
suffered power is
a performance
267.8 W, with
reduction the measuring
of more than 10%.tolerance this value is 275.83 W.

Figure12.
Figure 12.Distribution
Distributionof
ofmeasured
measuredpower
powervalues.
values.

Figure 13 shows the distribution of measured voltage series. The median of MPP
voltage series is 34.44 V, and the average MPP voltage value is 33.56 V. The average dif-
ference of MPP voltage series is 1.78 V and the standard deviation is 4.34 V; 45% of the
values are between of 34and 35 V (476 modules) and 51% of the values are under 34.4 V
(manufacturer data from Table 1). The median of open circuit voltage series is 36.7 V, and
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 10 of 13

The median of MPP power series is 259.70 Wp, and the average MPP power value is
250.76 Wp. The average difference is 17.68 Wp and the standard deviation is 36.98 Wp. 29%
of the values is between of 250 and 260 W (313 modules). Around 27% of MPP power values
are less than 252.2 W (282 modules), and 16% were less than 244.63 W (173 modules). The
panels have a 90% performance guarantee for the first 10 years and an 85% performance
guarantee for the next 10–25 years. After four years, 10% of the modules (107 modules)
suffered a performance reduction of more than 10%. If the actual power values are taken
into account, we obtain a much worse end result after summing the data. The median
of actual power series is 221.55 Wp, and the average actual power value is 215.68 Wp.
The average difference of actual power series is 19.27 Wp and the standard deviation is
34.49 Wp. 3% of the values are between of 250 and 260 W (313 modules). Around 98% of
MPP power values are less than 252.2 W (1043 modules) and 92% are less than 244.63 W
(976 modules). Furthermore, 76% of the modules (811 modules) suffered a performance
reduction of more than 10%.
Figure 13 shows the distribution of measured voltage series. The median of MPP
voltage series is 34.44 V, and the average MPP voltage value is 33.56 V. The average
difference of MPP voltage series is 1.78 V and the standard deviation is 4.34 V; 45% of the
values are between of 34and 35 V (476 modules) and 51% of the values are under 34.4 V
(manufacturer data from Table 1). The median of open circuit voltage series is 36.7 V, and
the average open circuit voltage value is 36.01 V. The average difference of open circuit
voltage series is 1.43 V and the standard deviation is 4.30 V; 55% of the values are between
of 36 and 37 V (583 modules) and 61% of the values are under 36.54 V (manufacturer10data
Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 13
from Table 1).

Figure13.
Figure 13.Distribution
Distributionof
ofmeasured
measuredvoltage
voltagevalues.
values.

Figure
Figure 14 14 shows the the distribution
distributionofofmeasured
measuredcurrent
current series.
series. TheThe median
median of MPP
of MPP cur-
current series
rent series is is 7.53
7.53 A,A, andthe
and theaverage
averageMPP MPPcurrent
currentvalue
value is
is 7.38
7.38 A. The average
average difference
difference
of
of MPP
MPP current
current series is 0.34
0.34 A Aand
andthethestandard
standarddeviation
deviationisis0.93
0.93
A;A;
56%56%of of
thethe values
values are
are between of 7.5 A and 8.0 A (594 modules) and 37% of the values
between of 7.5 A and 8.0 A (594 modules) and 37% of the values are under 7.47 A (manu- are under 7.47 A
(manufacturer
facturer data from data from
TableTable 1). median
1). The The median of short
of short circuit
circuit current
current series
series is 8.24
is 8.24 A, and
A, and the
the average
average shortshort circuit
circuit current
current valuevalue is A.
is 8.13 8.13
TheA.average
The average difference
difference ofcircuit
of short short current
circuit
current
series isseries
0.33 Ais 0.33
and A theand the standard
standard deviation
deviation is 0.97isA;0.97
66%A;of66%
theof the values
values are between
are between of 8.0
of 8.0 A and 8.5 A (699 modules) and 11% of the values are under
A and 8.5 A (699 modules) and 11% of the values are under 7.92 A (manufacturer data 7.92 A (manufacturer
data
fromfrom
Table Table
1). 1).
 of MPP current series is 0.34 A and the standard deviation is 0.93 A; 56% of the values are
between of 7.5 A and 8.0 A (594 modules) and 37% of the values are under 7.47 A (manu-
facturer data from Table 1). The median of short circuit current series is 8.24 A, and the
average short circuit current value is 8.13 A. The average difference of short circuit current
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 series is 0.33 A and the standard deviation is 0.97 A; 66% of the values are between11of of 8.0
13
A and 8.5 A (699 modules) and 11% of the values are under 7.92 A (manufacturer data
from Table 1).

Figure14.
Figure 14.Distribution
Distributionof
ofmeasured
measuredcurrent
currentvalues.
values.

4.4.Discussion
Discussionand andConclusions
Conclusions
In
In summary, theactual
summary, the actualpower
powervalues
valueswill
willcertainly
certainlygive
giveaadistorted
distortedpicture
pictureof
ofthe
the
condition of the power plant. The measurements lasted a long time,
condition of the power plant. The measurements lasted a long time, and the modules wereand the modules
were
not innot
theinsame
the same conditions
conditions (time,(time, weather).
weather). During During these in-situ
these in-situ measurements,
measurements, the
the surface
surface of the modules was dirty, which further reduced their performance.
of the modules was dirty, which further reduced their performance. However, specifically However,
specifically thisinterested
this effect also effect alsous,
interested
as it is a us, as it is afactor.
significant significant
At thefactor.
same At thethe
time, same time,
actual the
power
actual power values draw attention to the fact that solar modules do
values draw attention to the fact that solar modules do not continuously produce peak not continuously
produce peak
values, and values,
due and due to environmental
to environmental impacts, the actualimpacts,
totalthe actual totalofperformance
performance of
the solar power
the solar power plant may fall far short of expectations. Assuming a linear rate of natural
aging, a maximum power reduction of 17.888 Wp can be allowed during the 4-year period
between commissioning and measurement, taking into account the tolerance. This means
that the MPP performance of the panels at the time of measurement is faultless, in the
case of clean panels, it must be more than 242.112 Wp. Out of the 1063 units examined,
913 met this criterion. These are the panels on which the temperature distribution was less
than 15 ◦ C. If a measurement uncertainty of 3% is considered, the power of an additional
954 panels may meet expectations (234.849 W). The other solar panels aged faster than
expected. This phenomenon affected about 109 solar panels.
Because the MPP power values were recorded under laboratory conditions (constant
artificial illumination) and their surface was also cleaned, these values show true perfor-
mance. For many modules, even better values than the guaranteed performance could be
measured. However, the performance of many modules has been significantly reduced in
a very short time.
In the case where the actual performance of the panels at the time of measurement
is faultless, in the case of clean panels, it must be more than 242.112 Wp. Out of the
1063 units examined, only 118 met this criterion. If a measurement uncertainty of 3% is
considered, the power of an additional 234 panels may meet expectations (234.849 W). The
other solar panels aged faster than expected. This phenomenon affected about 829 solar
panels. However, a reduction in performance due to a manufacturing defect cannot be
ruled out either. That mean that with such a large number of panels, some panels may
not have been able to meet the factory parameters from the beginning of their operation.
Because solar cells that showed temperature deviations greater than 15 ◦ C during thermal
imaging studies were subjected to flash tests and electroluminescence tests, these flash
tests confirmed that a large number of solar panels did not actually meet the expected
performance. Further studies are needed to determine the cause of faster aging.
In order to prevent this problem, more attention should be paid to the effect of surface
contaminants. It is advisable to perform thermal camera examinations more frequently
using flying drones. The degree of air pollution must be taken into account when starting
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 12 of 13

planning [1,2]. The power plant must be located away from busy roads and industrial
parks. In the present case, when we are already talking about a power plant that has been
built, regular cleaning of the surface of the modules can be considered [36,37]. Prototypes
of automatically controlled cleaning robots and mechanisms are now available [38].

Author Contributions: The authors contributed equally to the paper, including conceptualization,
I.B. and D.M.-K.; formal analysis, R.R.B.; investigation, R.L. and R.R.B.; writing—original draft
preparation, I.B. and D.M.-K.; writing—review and editing, D.M.-K. and R.R.B.; visualization, R.L.;
supervision, I.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Said, S.A.M.; Hassan, G.; Walwil, H.M.; Al-Aqeeli, N. The effect of environmental factors and dust accumulation on photovoltaic
modules and dust-accumulation mitigation strategies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 743–760. [CrossRef]
2. Alonso-Montesinos, J.; Martínez, F.R.; Polo, J.; Martín-Chivelet, N.; Batlles, F.J. Economic effect of dust particles on photovoltaic
plant production. Energies 2020, 13, 6376. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, X.; Yue, S.; Lu, L.; Li, J. Study on dust deposition mechanics on solar mirrors in a solar power plant. Energies 2019, 12, 4550.
[CrossRef]
4. Ndiaye, A.; Kébe, C.M.F.; Bilal, B.O.; Charki, A.; Sambou, V.; Ndiaye, P.A. Study of the correlation between the dust density
accumulated on photovoltaic module’s surface and their performance characteristics degradation. Innov. Interdiscip. Solut.
Underserved Areas 2018, 204, 31–42. [CrossRef]
5. Klugmann-Radziemska, E. Shading, dusting and incorrect positioning of photovoltaic modules as important factors in perfor-
mance reduction. Energies 2020, 13, 1992. [CrossRef]
6. Gürtürk, M.; Benli, H.; Ertürk, N.K. Effects of different parameters on energy—Exergy and power conversion efficiency of PV
modules. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 426–439. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, C.; Shen, C.; Yang, Q.; Wei, S.; Lv, G.; Sun, C. An investigation on the attenuation effect of air pollution on regional solar
radiation. Renew. Energy 2020, 161, 570–578. [CrossRef]
8. Saber, H.H.; Hajiah, A.E.; Alshehri, S.A.; Hussain, H.J. Investigating the effect of dust accumulation on the solar reflectivity of
coating materials for cool roof applications. Energies 2021, 14, 445. [CrossRef]
9. Al Siyabi, I.; Al Mayasi, A.; Al Shukaili, A.; Khanna, S. Effect of soiling on solar photovoltaic performance under desert climatic
conditions. Energies 2021, 14, 659. [CrossRef]
10. Ali, M.U.; Saleem, S.; Masood, H.; Kallu, K.D.; Masud, M.; Alvi, M.J.; Zafar, A. Early hotspot detection in photovoltaic modules
using color image descriptors: An infrared thermography study. Int. J. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 1–12. [CrossRef]
11. Ikejiofor, O.E.; Asuamah, Y.E.; Njoku, H.O.; Enibe, S.O. Detection of hotspots and performance deteriotations in pv modules
under partial shading conditions using infrared thermography. Eng. Proc. 2020, 2, 71. [CrossRef]
12. Gallardo-Saavedra, S.; Hernández-Callejo, L.; Alonso-García, M.C.; Santos, J.D.; Morales-Aragonés, J.I.; Alonso-Gómez, V.;
Moretón-Fernández, Á.; González-Rebollo, M.Á.; Martínez-Sacristán, O. Nondestructive characterization of solar PV cells defects
by means of electroluminescence, infrared thermography, I–V curves and visual tests: Experimental study and comparison.
Energy 2020, 205, 117930. [CrossRef]
13. Alghamdi, A.S.; Bahaj, A.S.; Blunden, L.S.; Wu, Y. Dust removal from solar pv modules by automated cleaning systems. Energies
2019, 12, 2923. [CrossRef]
14. Singh, P.; Ravindra, N.M. Temperature dependence of solar cell performance—An analysis. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2012, 101,
36–45. [CrossRef]
15. Oh, S.; Figgis, B.W.; Rashkeev, S. Effect of thermophoresis on dust accumulation on solar panels. Sol. Energy 2020, 211, 412–417.
[CrossRef]
16. Tang, S.; Xing, Y.; Chen, L.; Song, X.; Yao, F. Review and a novel strategy for mitigating hot spot of PV panels. Sol. Energy 2021,
214, 51–61. [CrossRef]
17. Gerber, A.; Huhn, V.; Tran, T.M.H.; Siegloch, M.; Augarten, Y.; Pieters, B.E.; Rau, U. Advanced large area characterization of
thin-film solar modules by electroluminescence and thermography imaging techniques. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2015, 135,
35–42. [CrossRef]
18. Salazar, A.M.; Macabebe, E.Q.B. Hotspots detection in photovoltaic modules using infrared thermography. MATEC Web Conf.
2016, 70, 10015. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2021, 11, 1361 13 of 13

19. Berardone, I.; Lopez-Garcia, J.; Paggi, M. Analysis of electroluminescence and infrared thermal images of monocrystalline silicon
photovoltaic modules after 20 years of outdoor use in a solar vehicle. Sol. Energy 2018, 173, 478–486. [CrossRef]
20. Ballestín-Fuertes, J.; Muñoz-Cruzado-Alba, J.; Sanz-Osorio, J.F.; Hernández-Callejo, L.; Alonso-Gómez, V.; Morales-Aragones, J.I.;
Gallardo-Saavedra, S.; Martínez-Sacristan, O.; Moretón-Fernández, Á. Novel utility-scale photovoltaic plant electroluminescence
maintenance technique by means of bidirectional power inverter controller. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3084. [CrossRef]
21. Rajput, A.S.; Ho, J.W.; Zhang, Y.; Nalluri, S.; Aberle, A.G. Quantitative estimation of electrical performance parameters of
individual solar cells in silicon photovoltaic modules using electroluminescence imaging. Sol. Energy 2018, 173, 201–208.
[CrossRef]
22. Khan, F.; Kim, J.H. Performance degradation analysis of c-si pv modules mounted on a concrete slab under hot-humid conditions
using electroluminescence scanning technique for potential utilization in future solar roadways. Materials 2019, 12, 4047.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Tang, W.; Yang, Q.; Xiong, K.; Yan, W. Deep learning based automatic defect identification of photovoltaic module using
electroluminescence images. Sol. Energy 2020, 201, 453–460. [CrossRef]
24. Lin, H.-H.; Dandage, H.K.; Lin, K.-M.; Lin, Y.-T.; Chen, Y.-J. Efficient cell segmentation from electroluminescent images of
single-crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cell-based defect identification using deep learning with pseudo-colorization.
Sensors 2021, 21, 4292. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, H.; Zhao, H.; Han, D.; Liu, K. Accurate and robust crack detection using steerable evidence filtering in electroluminescence
images of solar cells. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2019, 118, 22–33. [CrossRef]
26. Parikh, H.R.; Buratti, Y.; Spataru, S.; Villebro, F.; Reis Benatto, G.A.D.; Poulsen, P.B.; Wendlandt, S.; Kerekes, T.; Sera, D.; Hameiri,
Z. Solar cell cracks and finger failure detection using statistical parameters of electroluminescence images and machine learning.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8834. [CrossRef]
27. Rajput, A.S.; Rodríguez-Gallegos, C.D.; Ho, J.W.; Nalluri, S.; Raj, S.; Aberle, A.G.; Singh, J.P. Fast extraction of front ribbon
resistance of silicon photovoltaic modules using electroluminescence imaging. Sol. Energy 2019, 194, 688–695. [CrossRef]
28. Drabczyk, K.; Kulesza-Matlak, G.; Drygała, A.; Szindler, M.; Lipiński, M. Electroluminescence imaging for determining the
influence of metallization parameters for solar cell metal contacts. Sol. Energy 2016, 126, 14–21. [CrossRef]
29. Frazão, M.; Silva, J.A.; Lobato, K.; Serra, J.M. Electroluminescence of silicon solar cells using a consumer grade digital camera.
Measurement 2017, 99, 7–12. [CrossRef]
30. Deitsch, S.; Christlein, V.; Berger, S.; Buerhop-Lutz, C.; Maier, A.; Gallwitz, F.; Riess, C. Automatic classification of defective
photovoltaic module cells in electroluminescence images. Sol. Energy 2019, 185, 455–468. [CrossRef]
31. Olivares, D.; Ferrada, P.; Bijman, J.; Rodríguez, S.; Trigo-González, M.; Marzo, A.; Rabanal-Arabach, J.; Alonso-Montesinos, J.;
Batlles, F.J.; Fuentealba, E. Determination of the soiling impact on photovoltaic modules at the coastal area of the atacama desert.
Energies 2020, 13, 3819. [CrossRef]
32. Akram, M.W.; Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, C.; Zhao, X.; Khaliq, A.; Faheem, M.; Ahmad, A. CNN based automatic detection of
photovoltaic cell defects in electroluminescence images. Energy 2019, 189, 116319. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, H.; Zhao, N.; Bi, Z.; Gao, S.; Dai, Q.; Yang, T.; Wang, J.; Jia, Z.; Peng, Z.; Huang, J.; et al. clear representation of surface
pathway reactions at ag nanowire cathodes in all-solid Li–O2 batteries. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 39157–39164.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Fontani, D.; Sansoni, P.; Francini, F.; Messeri, M.; Pierucci, G.; DeLucia, M.; Jafrancesco, D. Electroluminescence test to investigate
the humidity effect on solar cells operation. Energies 2018, 11, 2659. [CrossRef]
35. Khan, F.; Rezgui, B.D.; Kim, J.H. Reliability study of c-Si PV module mounted on a concrete slab by thermal cycling using
electroluminescence scanning: Application in future solar roadways. Materials 2020, 13, 470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Kazem, H.A.; Chaichan, M.T.; Al-Waeli, A.H.A.; Sopian, K. A review of dust accumulation and cleaning methods for solar
photovoltaic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123187. [CrossRef]
37. Alagoz, S.; Apak, Y. Removal of spoiling materials from solar panel surfaces by applying surface acoustic waves. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 253, 119992. [CrossRef]
38. Parrott, B.; Zanini, P.C.; Shehri, A.; Kotsovos, K.; Gereige, I. Automated, robotic dry-cleaning of solar panels in Thuwal, Saudi
Arabia using a silicone rubber brush. Sol. Energy 2018, 171, 526–533. [CrossRef]