Received: 14 July 2017 Revised: 18 September 2017 Accepted: 9 October 2017

DOI: 10.1002/pip.2960

EU PVSEC PAPER

Tunnel oxide passivating electron contacts as full‐area rear

emitter of high‐efficiency p‐type silicon solar cells
Armin Richter1 | Jan Benick1 | Ralph Müller1,2 | Frank Feldmann1,2 | Christian Reichel1 |

Martin Hermle1 | Stefan W. Glunz 1,2

1
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy
Systems (ISE), Heidenhofstrasse 2, 79110
Freiburg, Germany
2
Department of Sustainable Systems
Engineering Albert Ludwig, University of
Freiburg, Georges‐Köhler‐Allee 103, 79110
Freiburg, Germany
Correspondence
Armin Richter, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar
Energy Systems (ISE), Heidenhofstrasse 2,
79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Email: armin.richter@ise.fraunhofer.de
Funding information
German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
and Energy, Grant/Award Number: 0325827B
Abstract
Tunnel oxide passivating contacts (TOPCon) consisting of an ultrathin tunnel oxide capped by a
doped Si film exhibit excellent passivation and contact properties. The application of these con-
tacts has so far resulted in efficiencies of up to 25.7% realized with an n‐type Si solar cell featur-
ing a front‐side boron‐doped p+ emitter and n‐TOPCon as full‐area rear electron contact. In this
work, we study the same cell structure on p‐type Si. In this case, the p+ diffusion on the front acts
as a front surface field (FSF) and the n‐TOPCon layer as a full‐area rear emitter. One benefit of
this rear‐junction cell design is that the whole base contributes to the hole transport towards
the local contacts on the front, which means that the lateral current transport within the FSF is
less important than in the case of the front emitter of the n‐type cell. To study this, we addressed
the influence of the FSF lateral conductivity on the performance of these rear‐junction cells
theoretically (based on a simulation study) as well as experimentally (with fabricated cells).
Efficiencies up to 24.3% (independently confirmed) have been achieved with this structure
applying a FSF and up to 23.9% without the full‐area FSF. As such, these results demonstrate a
high device performance for these TOPCon rear emitter cells even without a lateral conductivity
in the FSF. This bears the potential to simplify the process chain quite substantially as no full‐area
boron diffusion is required.

KEY W ORDS

device simulation, front surface field, passivating contacts, silicon solar cells

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N The standard solar cell structure in mass production features contacts

Carrier‐selective passivating contacts based on silicon thin films enable
so far the highest energy conversion efficiencies for single junction
crystalline silicon (c‐Si) solar cells.1-8 The best known example is the
heterojunction of hydrogenated amorphous silicon (a‐Si:H) and c‐Si,
which enables very high open‐circuit voltages, VOC, of up to
750 mV.9 Other Si thin film‐based passivating contacts such as
10,11 2
SIPOS, tunnel oxide passivating contacts (TOPCon), or poly‐
Si12-14 make use of a high‐quality ultra‐thin intermediate SiOx layer
which is capped by a heavily doped nanocrystalline or polycrystalline
silicon layer. Most of these approaches have been demonstrated to
result in highest conversion efficiencies in the range of 25% and
1,3-8
above, with an impressive record value of 26.7% realized with an
interdigitated back contact solar cell and a‐Si:H based contacts.7,15
at the front and the rear, because of the less complex process
sequence compared with interdigitated back contact cells. The applica-
tion of Si‐based passivating contacts on both surfaces of front and rear
contacted solar cells results, however, in significant current losses due
to parasitic absorption in the a‐Si:H or the poly‐Si layer and the cap-
ping transparent conductive oxide,16,17 although there are approaches
to reduce these losses.18,19
In our approach, we combine the advantages of TOPCon with
those of a classical homojunction with its excellent electrical proper-
ties and in particular optical transparency. We have realized this by
using TOPCon as a full‐area electron contact on the rear surface of
an n‐type c‐Si solar cell with a boron‐doped front side emitter2,20,21
(cell structure (A) in Figure 1). The excellent electrical and optical
properties of the boron‐doped emitter are based on Al2O3 surface

Prog Photovolt Res Appl. 2017;1–8. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pip Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 RICHTER ET AL.

FIGURE 1 A, Schematic cross section of an n‐type Si solar cell with a boron‐doped front emitter and a tunnel oxide passivating contact (TOPCon)
at the rear. B and C, show the same cell design on a p‐type Si wafer with and without a full‐area front surface field (FSF), respectively [Colour figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

passivation.22-24 The full‐area TOPCon rear contact allows not only 2 | SIMULATION STUDY
high VOC values due to excellent passivation properties,5 but also
very high fill factors, FF, as there is no lateral current flow contribu-
2.1 | Simulation setup
tion for the electrons within the silicon bulk.20,25 Very recently, we
have achieved efficiencies up to 25.7% in combination with a very The device simulations of the TOPCon rear emitter solar cells were
5
high FF of 83.3%, which demonstrates the potential of this cell performed with Quokka v2,34 a solar cell simulation tool based on

structure and represents the highest efficiency reported so far for a the conductive boundary approach35 in which the surfaces are defined

both‐sides contacted Si solar cell.15 with recombination parameters J0 and sheet resistances, Rsheet. The

The application of exactly the same cell structure to a p‐type Si simulations were performed for a 2‐dimensional unit cell of the solar

wafer results in a rear junction solar cell (cell structure (B) in cell structure shown in Figure 1B, ie, with full‐area FSF. The main input
+
Figure 1). In this case, the p diffusion at the front acts as a high‐ parameters for these device simulations are listed in Table 1. They are

low junction (hole contact) also known as front surface field (FSF), all based on experimental measurements, eg, the J0 values were

while the TOPCon layer forms a full‐area pn‐junction (electron con- extracted from τeff measurements of symmetrically processed lifetime

tact), ie, emitter. It was already demonstrated that TOPCon forms a samples as described in Section 3.1 or the Rsheet of the FSF was mea-

high‐quality pn‐junction. 26,27

One benefit of this rear‐junction cell sured with the 4‐point probe technique. The optical model is based on

structure is that the full‐area metal contact to the TOPCon emitter a wavelength‐dependent front surface transmission, extracted from

omits lateral current transport losses within the emitter, which is the measured reflectance of the solar cells, and a parameterization of

quite a significant power loss for the front side emitter cell structure the pathlength enhancement Z as suggested in Ref. 36. The parameters
5
shown in Figure 1A. Another benefit is that the whole silicon bulk of this Z‐parameterization are given in Ref. 5. With respect to the bulk

contributes to the hole (majority carrier) transport towards the local

FSF contacts at the front, which means that the lateral current trans- TABLE 1 Main input parameters for the device simulations
port within the FSF is less important28,29 than in the case of the
Parameter Value
front‐side emitter of the n‐type Si cell. This bears the potential to
Wafer thickness W 250 μm
reduce the sheet resistance of the FSF or even omit the full‐area
++
Heavily doped p FSF below front contact:
FSF (cell structure (C) in Figure 1), which could reduce the complexity
Sheet resistance Rsheet,p++ 15 Ω/sq
of the fabrication process quite substantially, in particular if the high
++ Width 10 μm
temperature diffusion of the heavily doped p regions required
J0 of metallized area, J0e,p++,met 300 fA/cm2
directly below the front metal contacts can be replaced, for instance,
Contact resistivity ρC,p++ 0.4 mΩ cm2
by a laser‐based formation of the p++ region.30-33
Front metal grid:
In this work, we have studied the efficiency potential of these
Finger pitch 833 μm
p‐type Si solar cells with rear TOPCon emitter and diffused FSF, with
Finger width 11 μm
a special focus on the influence of the lateral conductivity of the FSF
Finger shading fraction 70%
on the device performance and to address the question if a full‐area
Grid resistance Rgrid 66 mΩ cm2
FSF is required. In order to investigate this theoretically, we have per-
Width of contact opening 8 μm
formed a device simulation study, addressing also the influence of the
Rear passivating contact (TOPCon):
Si bulk resistivity. In addition, we have fabricated test structures and
J0,TOPCon 7 fA/cm2
solar cells with and without the full‐area FSF in order to demonstrate
Contact resistivity ρC,TOPCon 50 mΩ cm2
the cell performance experimentally.
RICHTER ET AL. 3

properties of Si, eg, the charge carrier mobility, intrinsic carrier concen-
tration, and Auger recombination, state‐of‐the‐art models have been
applied.37-40 The simulations were performed for standard testing con-
ditions (STC), ie, for a temperature of 25°C.
2.2 | Results and discussion
In order to study the influence of the lateral current transport in the
full‐area FSF on the performance of the TOPCon rear junction cells,
the FSF sheet resistance Rsheet,FSF and the FSF passivation quality in
terms of the recombination parameter J0,FSF were varied indepen-
dently. These variations were conducted for 2 different silicon bulk
resistivities ρb of 1 Ω cm and 10 Ω cm, in order to identify
interdependencies of all the parameters, as, for instance, reported by
Bivour et al for n‐type silicon solar cells with a silicon heterojunction
at the rear and a diffused n+ FSF.41
The simulated I‐V parameters are shown in Figure 2, on the left
for ρb = 1 Ω cm and on the right for ρb = 10 Ω cm. Note that J0,FSF
and Rsheet,FSF were varied independently, for which reason some com-
binations of low J0,FSF and low Rsheet,FSF in the lower left corner of the
diagrams might not be realized experimentally, as the lower limit for
J0,FSF is given by the Auger recombination contribution of the FSF
diffusion. Note further that loss mechanisms such as a bulk lifetime
limitation, perimeter recombination, or parallel shunt resistances have
not been considered in these simulations. For this reason, the simu-
lated I‐V parameters are slightly higher than experimentally expected.

FIGURE 2 Simulated I‐V parameters for the TOPCon rear‐junction p‐type Si solar cells with FSF (structure (B) shown in Figure 1) as a function of
the FSF recombination parameter J0,FSF and the FSF sheet resistance, Rsheet,FSF. The results are shown on the left side for a silicon bulk resistivity of
1 Ω cm and on the right side for 10 Ω cm. The stars indicate the J0,FSF of the 300 Ω/sq FSF used in this study (see Table 2). Note that J0,FSF and
Rsheet,FSF were varied independently, for which reason some combinations of low J0,FSF and low Rsheet,FSF in the lower left corner of the diagrams
might not be realized experimentally, as those J0,FSF values can be lower than the Auger recombination contribution of the FSF [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
4 RICHTER
For instance, perimeter recombination at small area high‐efficiency Si
solar cells, as fabricated in this study, typically provokes an efficiency
loss of ~0.3%abs.5,42
The simulation results reveal that the influence of Rsheet,FSF and
J0,FSF on the cell performance is quite different for 1 Ω cm and 10 Ω cm
Si bulk resistivity. For instance, the JSC is almost independent of
Rsheet,FSF and J0,FSF in the case of 10 Ω cm Si, while it strongly
decreases with increasing J0,FSF in the case of 1 Ω cm Si especially for
2
J0,FSF > 20 fA/cm . This different behavior, which has already been
reported for rear emitter solar cells,43 can be explained by the fact that
for a given J0 value, the absolute surface recombination current is pro-
portional to the doping concentration under low injection conditions,44
as being present at short‐circuit conditions. The VOC of both bulk resis-
tivities is independent of Rsheet,FSF and increases very similar with
decreasing J0,FSF, as expected from the 1‐diode model.
With respect to the influence of the lateral conductivity of the
FSF, the distinct difference observed for the FF of both bulk resistiv-
ities is most interesting. In the case of 1 Ω cm Si, the FF is rather
insensitive to an increase of Rsheet,FSF, which shows that the majority
carrier conductivity of 1 Ω cm Si is high enough to transport the
majority carriers to the local FSF contacts without significant addi-
tional series resistances losses. Thus, a FSF seems not be required
for cells made of 1 Ω cm Si. On the other hand, the FF of 10 Ω
cm Si cells strongly decreases with increasing Rsheet,FSF, which shows
that the cells made of 10 Ω cm Si are quite prone to the lateral con-
ductivity in the FSF due to a too low Si bulk conductivity. At very
high Rsheet,FSF > 100 kΩ/sq, which can be considered to represent
cells without FSF, the FF of 10 Ω cm Si cells strongly increases with
decreasing J0,FSF. This strong increase correlates with a significant
increase of the majority carrier concentration, as can be observed
from the ratio of the maximum power point excess carrier density
and the base doping concentration, Δnmpp/Ndop, shown in Figure 3.
2
For Rsheet,FSF > 100 kΩ/sq and J0,FSF < 10 fA/cm , the majority car-
rier concentration is increased by more than 50%, which is quite sub-
stantial as the charge carrier conductivity is proportional to the
charge carrier concentration. Thus, for 10 Ω cm Si cells without
FSF represented here by Rsheet,FSF > 100 kΩ/sq, the FF increase with
decreasing J0,FSF can be explained by a significantly increasing major-
ity carrier concentration in excess of the bulk doping concentration,
ie, the transition from low injection to high injection.
FIGURE 3 Ratio of the excess carrier density at maximum power point and the base doping concentration Δnmpp/Ndop for the simulations shown
in Figure 2. Note that for 1 Ω cm p‐type Si (left), the contour plot is completely red because Δnmpp/Ndop ranges only from 0.01 to 0.05, indicating
low level injection over the whole J0,FSF and Rsheet,FSF range [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
ET AL.
Altogether, the simulated efficiency, η, for cells made of 1 Ω cm Si
is rather insensitive to Rsheet,FSF. Although the cells made of 10 Ω cm Si
suffer from a decreasing FF with increasing Rsheet,FSF, the efficiency
potential without FSF (Rsheet,FSF > 100 kΩ/sq) is almost as high as for
1 Ω cm Si cells without FSF, as the lower FF is overcompensated by
a slightly higher VOC and in particular by a higher JSC. Thus, for cells
made of 10 Ω cm Si, a FSF seems also not to be required. Although
not studied in this work, it is worth mentioning that the higher conduc-
tivity of the 1 Ω cm Si is expected to be beneficial, if the pitch of the
front metal grid is increased.
3 | S O L A R CE L L S
3.1 | Experimental
In order to study the influence of the FSF conductivity experimentally,
TOPCon rear emitter p‐type Si solar cells with and without a FSF (cell
structures (B) and (C) in Figure 1, respectively) were fabricated analo-
gously to the front‐junction n‐type Si solar cells with rear TOPCon
electron contacts reported in Ref. 5. The cells with a designated area
of 2×2 cm2 were made of high‐quality (100)‐oriented p‐type float‐zone
(FZ) Si wafers with a resistivity of 10 Ω cm, a thickness of 250 μm, and
a diameter of 100 mm.
The full‐area TOPCon emitter at the rear was formed by an ultra‐
thin wet‐chemically grown SiOx layer covered by a 15‐nm‐thick phos-
phorus‐doped SiC layer deposited with plasma‐enhanced chemical
vapor deposition (PECVD), which was annealed afterwards in a tube
furnace at 800°C (process details in Ref.2,27). In order to separate the
TOPCon emitter of the different cells located on each wafer, the
TOPCon layer was etched back in the perimeter region dry‐chemically
using a plasma etch process. This perimeter region was passivated
afterwards with a stack of 10 nm Al2O3 deposited with plasma‐
assisted atomic layer deposition capped by 150‐nm PECVD SiOx. After
opening this Al2O3/SiOx stack at the active cell area wet‐chemically,
the rear side metallization was formed by thermally evaporated Ag.
The front side was textured with random pyramids. The full‐area
FSF with a sheet resistance of Rsheet,FSF = 300 Ω/sq was diffused by
a BBr3 tube furnace process at 870°C followed by a drive‐in oxidation.
To form front side contacts with low surface recombination losses, a
RICHTER ET AL.
heavily doped p++ FSF is located underneath the front side metal con-
tacts. This p++ FSF was also diffused via a BBr3 tube furnace process
and a subsequent drive‐in diffusion. The front surface, either with or
without full‐area FSF, was passivated with 10 nm of Al2O3 deposited
with plasma‐assisted atomic layer deposition. The front side was addi-
tionally coated with a double‐layer antireflection coating consisting of
50‐nm PECVD SiNx and 90‐nm thermally evaporated MgF2. Prior to
the MgF2 deposition, contact openings were etched wet‐chemically
through the front side Al2O3/SiNx layer stack. The front side metal
contacts were formed with a stack of e‐beam evaporated Ti/Pd/Ag
(833‐μm pitch). All structuring processes required for the fabrication
of these solar cells are based on photolithography processes (eg, to
structure thermally‐grown SiO2 mask layers) and the lift‐off technique
(eg, for the front side metal contacts).
In order to determine the surface passivation quality of the front
surface with and without the 300 Ω/sq FSF in terms of J0, symmet-
rically processed lifetime test samples were fabricated without the
heavily doped p++ regions. Similar lifetime test samples were also fab-
ricated for the phosphorous‐doped TOPCon emitter. These lifetime
samples were made of 10 Ω cm p‐type FZ Si wafers as used for cells,
except for the sample with FSF, which was made of a (100)‐oriented
n‐type FZ Si wafer with a resistivity of 10 Ω cm and a thickness of
200 μm. The surface morphology of the lifetime test samples was
identical to the respective surface of the solar cells, ie, planar for
the TOPCon emitter and random‐pyramids textured for the samples
with and without FSF. J0 values were extracted from injection‐
dependent effective lifetime, τeff, data according to the high‐injection
method proposed by Kane and Swanson45 applying the correction
routines described by Kimmerle et al. 46
τeff was measured with the
photo‐conductance decay technique using the Sinton lifetime tester
WCT120 in quasi‐steady‐state mode (QSSPC) 47
and the generalized
analysis proposed by Nagel et al.48 The optical factor fopt required
for the QSSPC analysis was determined for each sample by adapting
the QSSPC measurements to transient photo‐conductance decay mea-
surements in an excess carrier density range around 3×1015 cm−3.
For properly adapted fopt, a good agreement of both measurements
was observed for all samples. Note that this J0 evaluation is also well
suited for the sample without FSF, which is an Al2O3‐passivated p‐type
Si wafer without a diffused junction where the negative fix charges of
Al2O349,50 form an accumulation layer at the surface. This follows from
the surface recombination parameter analysis reported by McIntosh
and Black.51
3.2 | Surface passivation properties
Table 2 gives an overview of the surface passivation properties of the
fabricated lifetime test samples and the respective sample structures.
The surface passivation properties are quantified with the implied
open‐circuit voltage, iVOC, the implied fill factor, iFF, and the J0 values,
as extracted from the injection‐dependent τeff data. The TOPCon emit-
ter lifetime sample shows very good passivation properties indicated
by a high iVOC of around 720 mV and an iFF close to 85%, which clearly
demonstrates that this TOPCon emitter is well suited for the high‐effi-
ciency p‐type Si solar cells considered in this study. The lifetime test
sample with the 300 Ω/sq FSF shows a high iVOC of 721 mV, and thus,
5
TABLE 2 Surface passivation properties and sample structures of the
3 different symmetrical lifetime samples
TOPCon Emitter With FSF Without FSF
iVOC (mV) 719 721 736
iFF (%) 84.8 83.3 85.2
J0 (fA/cm2) 7.1 7.5 3.1
also rather good passivation properties. The rather low iFF of this sam-
ple is at least to some extent associated with sample edge recombina-
tion as was reported for such lifetime samples with pn‐junction if a
unpassivated edge is present,52 which is the case for this sample. For
the sample without FSF, an iVOC level of 736 mV and an iFF level of
>85% were achieved, which clearly outperforms the passivation qual-
ity of the 300 Ω/sq FSF sample. This demonstrates that an excellent
surface passivation can be achieved with Al2O3 even on this random‐
pyramids textured p‐type Si surfaces without FSF.
The extracted J0 values of these samples can be used to estimate
the efficiency potential of the TOPCon rear emitter solar cell with and
without FSF based on the simulation results shown in Figure 2. The
stars mark the efficiency potential of the 300 Ω/sq FSF. From the sim-
ulations, it can be observed that the predicted efficiency potential of
cells with FSF is slightly higher for 10 Ω cm Si compared with 1 Ω
cm Si. The efficiency potential of cells without FSF can be estimated
from the very high Rsheet,FSF > 100 kΩ/sq region. For the J0 value of
~3 fA/cm2, as extracted for the lifetime test sample without FSF, the
predicted efficiency potential is slightly higher for 1 Ω cm Si. Thus,
10 Ω cm Si has the highest efficiency potentials for cells with FSF
and 1 Ω cm Si for cells without FSF, although the difference in partic-
ular for cells without FSF is very small (less than 0.2%abs). Considering
these small differences in the predicted efficiency potential, we chose
10 Ω cm Si wafers for the first batch of TOPCon rear emitter cells fab-
ricated in this study.
3.3 | Solar cell results
The measured I‐V parameters of the fabricated TOPCon rear emitter
cells with and without FSF are summarized in Table 3 for the best cells
per variation together with averaged data. The pseudo fill factor, PFF,
and total series resistance of the cells under illumination, Rs,light, are
shown as well. The PFF was extracted from illumination intensity vs
VOC (Suns‐VOC) measurements53,54 using the Suns‐VOC setup from
Sinton Instruments. Rs,light was determined from the voltage difference
of the Suns‐VOC and the I‐V data at maximum power point.55,56
Efficiency values in the range of 24% have been achieved for cells
with and without FSF, which demonstrates experimentally a very high
device performance for these TOPCon rear emitter cells even without
additional lateral conductivity of the FSF. With an independently con-
firmed peak efficiency of 24.3%, the cells with FSF show a slightly
higher performance than the cells without FSF, for which a peak effi-
ciency of 23.9% was achieved. A comparison of the I‐V parameters
6 RICHTER ET AL.

TABLE 3 I‐V parameters as well as PFF and Rs,light of the best cells per variation together with averaged values. All cells were made of 10 Ω cm FZ
Si wafers, have a designated area of 2 × 2 cm2, and were measured under STC
Front side VOC, mV JSC, mA/cm2 FF, % η, % PFF, % Rs.light, Ω cm2

with FSF Best 714.2 42.4 80.8 24.3a 82.4 0.38

Ave. of 4 cells 713.7 ± 0.4 42.2 ± 0.2 79.8 ± 0.8 24.0 ± 0.3 82.1 ± 0.4 0.38 ± 0.03
w/o FSF Best 708.4 42.4 79.7 23.9 83.1 0.65
Ave. of 3 cells 711.5 ± 2.9 42.3 ± 0.1 78.9 ± 0.7 23.8 ± 0.2 82.6 ± 0.5 0.65 ± 0.02
a
Independently confirmed by Fraunhofer ISE CalLab.

reveals a very similar JSC of both cell types, which is supported by the
almost identical internal quantum efficiency shown in Figure 4. VOC
values in the range of 710 mV and above were obtained for both var-
iations, which demonstrates that a high quality surface passivation is
provided by the phosphorus‐doped TOPCon emitter at the rear and
the Al2O3 passivated front surface. A slightly higher VOC level was
observed for the cells with FSF, which was not expected from the sim-
ulation results shown in Figure 2, where a ~5 mV higher VOC was pre-
dicted for the cells without FSF. The lower VOC of the cells without
FSF is—at least to some extent—due to processing issues (contact
opening wider than p++ diffusion as detected in microscope images),
as the cells without FSF are more prone to this issue due to a higher
J0,FSF increase.
The most significant influence on the device performances origi-
nates from the FF. The FF of the cells without FSF is ~1%abs lower
than the FF of the cells with FSF, although the PFF of the cells with-
out FSF is on average even 0.5%abs higher. The lower FF of the cells
without FSF can be attributed to a ~70% higher series resistance, as
can be observed from the Rs,light data given in Table 3. Actually, such
a ~1%abs lower FF for cells without FSF was expected from the sim-
ulation results, but on a significantly higher FF level around 83.5%.
Thus, both types of cells suffer from an overall too low FF level of
~80%, which can be attributed to an overall too low PFF level of only
~82.5%. Consequently, the FF is not limited by series resistances, as
supported by the reasonable Rs,light level of ~0.4 Ω cm2 for the solar
cells with FSF, which is the same Rs,light level as observed also for the
>25% efficient front emitter n‐type Si cells reported in Ref. 5. This
overall low FF level originates—at least to some extent—from the
etch back process, which is necessary to remove the TOPCon emitter
100
90
80
R IQE
70
IQE and R (%)
outside the active cell area. Due to a non‐perfect masking layer
(defects in a sacrificial SiOx layer), the TOPCon emitter in the active
cell area was harmed during this process which led to local shunts
and increased recombination currents. It is important to emphasize
that this issue is only related to our small‐area laboratory‐type cell
process sequence and would not appear at full‐size solar cells, as
no etch‐back is required there. We are quite confident to improve
the cell performance of our small‐area cells by the application of an
improved etch‐back process, as currently being implemented in a
new cell batch.
4 | CO NC L U SI O NS A N D O U TL OO K
In this work, we have investigated the performance of p‐type silicon
solar cells with a TOPCon rear emitter theoretically by performing a
device simulation study as well as experimentally with fabricated solar
cells. The focus of the investigation was on the influence of the lateral
conductivity of a FSF. The simulation study revealed that for a silicon
bulk resistivity of 1 Ω cm, the cell performance is quite insensitive to
the sheet resistance of the FSF, indicating that a FSF is not required.
The simulation results showed further that cells made of 10 Ω cm Si
are more sensitive to the sheet resistance of the FSF, which is, how-
ever, almost completely compensated by a higher VOC and JSC level.
Experimentally, TOPCon rear emitter cells were fabricated with and
without FSF using 10 Ω cm Si wafers. Efficiency values up to 23.9%
and 24.3% were obtained for cells without and with FSF, respectively.
The slightly lower performance of the cells without FSF is related to a
moderate series resistance increase, as predicted by the device
simulations.
As such, these results demonstrate a high device performance for
the TOPCon rear emitter cells even without a lateral conductivity in
the FSF. This bears the potential to simplify the process chain quite
substantially as no full‐area boron diffusion is required. There is, how-

with FSF
60 ever, still a highly‐doped p++ region required underneath the front grid
without FSF
50 for contact passivation. Although a diffused local p++ region was used

40
in this study, alternative processes for the formation of local p++

30
regions have been reported, in particular based on laser doping.30-33
Thus, the high device performance obtained in this study for the cells
20
without FSF can be considered as a first step towards a high‐efficiency
10
diffusion‐free rear‐junction p‐type Si solar cell, and further work needs
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 to address whether such alternative processes can replace the high‐
wavelength (nm) quality, diffused p++ regions underneath the front grid. As rear emitter

FIGURE 4 Internal quantum efficiency IQE and reflectance R solar cells are more prone to defect recombination in the silicon bulk,57
measured on cells either with or without the FSF [Colour figure can future work needs also to address the requirements regarding the
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] electronic quality of the p‐type Si bulk material.
RICHTER ET AL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The authors would like to thank S. Seitz, A. Leimenstoll, F. Schätzle, N.
Brändlin, K. Zimmermann, A. Seiler, and H. Steidl for their contribu-
tions during solar cell processing and E. Schäffer and F. Martin for
performing measurements. This work was partially supported by the
German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy under grant
No. 0325827B “26+”.
ORCID
Armin Richter http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7232-8385
RE FE R ENC E S
1. Adachi D, Hernández JL, Yamamoto K. Impact of carrier recombination
on fill factor for large area heterojunction crystalline silicon solar cell
with 25.1% efficiency. Appl Phys Lett. 2015;107(23):233506.
2. Feldmann F, Bivour M, Reichel C, Hermle M, Glunz SW. Passivated rear
contacts for high‐efficiency n‐type Si solar cells providing high interface
passivation quality and excellent transport characteristics. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells. 2014;120:270‐274.
3. Masuko K, Shigematsu M, Hashiguchi T, et al. Achievement of more
than 25% conversion efficiency with crystalline silicon heterojunction
solar cell. IEEE J. Photovoltaics. 2014;4(6):1433‐1435.
4. Nakamura J, Asano N, Hieda T, Okamoto C, Katayama H, Nakamura K.
Development of heterojunction back contact Si solar cells. IEEE Journal
of Photovoltaics. 2014;4(6):1491‐1495.
5. Richter A, Benick J, Feldmann F, Fell A, Hermle M, Glunz SW. n‐Type Si
solar cells with passivating electron contact: identifying sources for effi-
ciency limitations by wafer thickness and resistivity variation. Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells. 2017;173:96‐105.
6. Smith DD, Cousins P, Westerberg S, de Jesus‐Tabajonda R, Aniero G,
Shen Y‐C. Toward the practical limits of silicon solar cells. IEEE J. Photo-
voltaics. 2014;4(6):1465‐1469.
7. Yoshikawa K, Kawasaki H, Yoshida W, et al. Silicon heterojunction solar
cell with interdigitated back contacts for a photoconversion efficiency
over 26%. Nat Energy. 2017;2:17032.
8. Haase F, Kiefer F, Schäfer S, et al. Interdigitated back contact solar cells
with polycrystalline silicon on oxide passivating contacts for both polar-
ities. Jpn J Appl Phys. 2017;56(8S2): 08MB15.
9. Taguchi M, Yano A, Tohoda S, et al. 24.7% record efficiency HIT solar
cell on thin silicon wafer. IEEE J. Photovoltaics. 2014;4(1):96‐99.
10. Kwark Y, Sinton RA, Swanson RM. Low J0 contact structures using
sipos and polysilicon films, In: Proceedings of 20th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference, Las Vegas, USA, 1988, pp. 787–792.
11. Yablonovitch E, Gmitter T, Swanson RM, Kwark YH. A 720 mV open
circuit voltage SiOx:c‐Si:SiOx double heterostructure solar cell. Appl
Phys Lett. 1985;47(11):1211‐1213.
12. Gan JY, Swanson RM. Polysilicon emitters for silicon concentrator solar
cells, In: Proceedings of 21st IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference,
Kissimmee, USA, 1990, pp. 245–250.
13. Rohatgi A, Rounsaville B, Ok Y‐W, et al. Fabrication and modeling of
high‐efficiency front junction N‐type silicon solar cells with tunnel oxide
passivating back contact. IEEE J. Photovoltaics. 2017;7:1236‐1243.
14. Römer U, Peibst R, Ohrdes T, et al. Recombination behavior and contact
resistance of n+ and p+ poly‐crystalline Si/mono‐crystalline Si junctions.
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells. 2014;131:85‐91.
15. Green MA, Hishikawa Y, Warta W, et al. Solar cell efficiency tables (ver-
sion 50). Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2017;25(7):668‐676.
16. Feldmann F, Reichel C, Müller R, Hermle M. The application of poly‐Si/
SiOx contacts as passivated top/rear contacts in Si solar cells. Sol.
Energy Mater Sol. Cells. 2017;159:265‐271.
17. Wolf SD, Descoeudres A, Holman ZC, Ballif C. High‐efficiency silicon
heterojunction solar cells: a review, green 2 (1) (2012).
7
18. van Cleef MWM, Rath JK, Rubinelli FA, van der Werf CHM, Schropp
REI, van der Weg WF. Performance of heterojunction p+ microcrystal-
line silicon n crystalline silicon solar cells. J Appl Phys.
1997;82(12):6089‐6095.
19. Bivour M, Temmler J, Steinkemper H, Hermle M. Molybdenum and
tungsten oxide: high work function wide band gap contact materials
for hole selective contacts of silicon solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells. 2015;142:34‐41.
20. Glunz SW, Feldmann F, Richter A, Bivour M, Reichel C, Steinkemper H,
Benick J, Hermle M. The irresistible charm of a simple current flow pat-
tern – 25% with a solar cell featuring a full‐area back contact, In:
Proceedings of 31st European Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
and Exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 2015, pp. 259–263.
21. Hermle M, Feldmann F, Eisenlohr J, Benick J, Richter A, Lee B, Stradins
P, Rohatgi A, Glunz SW. Approaching efficiencies above 25% with both
sides‐contacted silicon solar cells, in: Proceedings of 42nd IEEE Photo-
voltaic Specialists Conference, New Orleans, LA, 2015.
22. Benick J, Hoex B, van de Sanden MCM, Kessels WMM, Schultz O,
Glunz SW. High efficiency n‐type Si solar cells on Al2O3‐passivated
boron emitters. Appl Phys Lett. 2008;92(25):253504.
23. Hoex B, Schmidt J, Bock R, Altermatt PP, van de Sanden MCM, Kessels
WMM. Excellent passivation of highly doped p‐type Si surfaces by the
negative‐charge‐dielectric Al2O3. Appl Phys Lett. 2007;91(11):112107.
24. Richter A, Benick J, Hermle M. Boron emitter passivation with Al2O3
and Al2O3/SiNx stacks using ALD Al2O3. IEEE J. Photovoltaics.
2013;3(1):236‐245.
25. Steinkemper H, Hermle M, Glunz SW. Comprehensive simulation study
of industrially relevant silicon solar cell architectures for an optimal
material parameter choice. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2016;
24(10):1319‐1331.
26. Feldmann F, Simon M, Bivour M, Reichel C, Hermle M, Glunz SW.
Carrier‐selective contacts for Si solar cells. Appl Phys Lett.
2014;104(18):181105.
27. Feldmann F, Simon M, Bivour M, Reichel C, Hermle M, Glunz SW. Effi-
cient carrier‐selective p‐ and n‐contacts for Si solar cells. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells. 2014;131:100‐104.
28. Schultz‐Wittmann O, Turner A, Eggleston B, de Ceuster D, Suwito D.,
van Kerschaver E, Baker‐Finch S, Prajapati V. High volume manufactur-
ing of high efficiency crystalline silicon solar cells with shielded metal
contacts, In: Proceedings of 32st European Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference and Exhibition, München, Germany, 2016, pp. 456–459.
29. Rüdiger M, Schmiga C, Rauer M, Hermle M, Glunz SW. Efficiency
potential of n‐type silicon solar cells with aluminum‐doped rear p+
emitter. IEEE Trans Electron Devices. 2012;59(5):1295‐1303.
30. Fernandez‐Robledo S, Kluska S, Greulich J, Nekarda J. Selective boron
emitters using laser‐induced forward transfer versus laser doping from
borosilicate glass. IEEE J. Photovoltaics. 2017; in press
31. Poulain G, Blanc D, Focsa A, et al. Selective laser doping from boron sil-
icate glass. Energy Procedia. 2012;27:455‐459.
32. Hameiri Z, Mai L, Puzzer T, Wenham SR. Influence of laser power on
the properties of laser doped solar cells. Sol. Energy Mater Sol. Cells.
2011;95(4):1085‐1094.
33. Kluska S, Granek F. High‐efficiency silicon solar cells with boron local
back surface fields formed by laser chemical processing. IEEE Electron
Device Lett. 2011;32(9):1257‐1259.
34. Fell A. A free and fast three‐dimensional/two‐dimensional solar cell
simulator featuring conductive boundary and quasi‐neutrality approxi-
mations. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices. 2013;60(2):733‐738.
35. Brendel R. Modeling solar cells with the dopant‐diffused layers treated
as conductive boundaries. Prog Photovolt: Res Appl. 2012;20(1):31‐43.
36. Fell A, McIntosh KR, Fong KC. Simplified device simulation of silicon
solar cells using a lumped parameter optical model. IEEE J. Photovol-
taics. 2016;6(3):611‐616.
8 RICHTER
37. Altermatt PP, Schenk A, Geelhaar F, Heiser G. Reassessment of the
intrinsic carrier density in crystalline silicon in view of band‐gap
narrowing. J Appl Phys. 2003;93(3):1598.
38. Klaassen DBM. A unified mobility model for device simulation: II. Tem-
perature dependence of carrier mobility and lifetime. Solid State
Electron. 1992;35(7):961‐967.
39. Richter A, Glunz SW, Werner F, Schmidt J, Cuevas A. Improved quanti-
tative description of Auger recombination in crystalline silicon. Phys Rev
B. 2012;86(16):165202.
40. Schenk A. Finite‐temperature full random‐phase approximation model
of band gap narrowing for silicon device simulation. J Appl Phys.
1998;84(7):3684‐3695.
41. Bivour M, Rüdiger M, Reichel C, Ritzau K‐U, Hermle M, Glunz SW.
Analysis of the diffused front surface field of n‐type silicon solar cells
with a‐Si/c‐Si heterojunction rear emitter. Energy Procedia.
2011;8:185‐192.
42. Fong KC, Padilla M, Fell A, et al. Perimeter recombination charac-
terization by luminescence imaging. IEEE J Photovoltaics. 2016;
6(1):244‐251.
43. Hermle M, Granek F, Schultz O, Glunz SW. Analyzing the effects of
front‐surface fields on back‐junction silicon solar cells using the
charge‐collection probability and the reciprocity theorem. J Appl Phys.
2008;103(5):54507
44. Schumacher JO, Altermatt PP, Heiser G, Aberle AG. Application of an
improved band‐gap narrowing model to the numerical simulation of
recombination properties of phosphorus‐doped silicon emitters. Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells. 2001;65(1–4):95‐103.
45. Kane D.E., Swanson R.M. Measurement of the emitter saturation cur-
rent by a contactless photoconductivity decay method (silicon solar
cells), in: Proceedings of 18th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference,
Las Vegas, 1985, pp. 578–583.
46. Kimmerle A, Greulich J, Wolf A. Carrier‐diffusion corrected J0‐analysis
of charge carrier lifetime measurements for increased consistency. Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells. 2015;142:116‐122.
47. Sinton RA, Cuevas A. Contactless determination of current–voltage
characteristics and minority‐carrier lifetimes in semiconductors from
quasi‐steady‐state photoconductance data. Appl Phys Lett.
1996;69(17):2510‐2512.
ET AL.
48. Nagel H, Berge C, Aberle AG. Generalized analysis of quasi‐steady‐
state and quasi‐transient measurements of carrier lifetimes in semicon-
ductors. J Appl Phys. 1999;86(11):6218‐6221.
49. Schuldis D, Richter A, Benick J, Saint‐Cast P, Hermle M, Glunz SW.
Properties of the c‐Si/Al2O3 interface of ultrathin atomic layer depos-
ited Al2O3 layers capped by SiNx for c‐Si surface passivation. Appl
Phys Lett. 2014;105(23):231601.
50. Hoex B, Heil SBS, Langereis E, van de Sanden MCM, Kessels WMM.
Ultralow surface recombination of c‐Si substrates passivated by
plasma‐assisted atomic layer deposited Al2O3. Appl Phys Lett.
2006;89(4):42112.
51. McIntosh KR, Black LE. On effective surface recombination parame-
ters. J Appl Phys. 2014;116(1):14503.
52. Kessler M, Ohrdes T, Altermatt PP, Brendel R. The effect of sample
edge recombination on the averaged injection‐dependent carrier life-
time in silicon. J Appl Phys. 2012;111(5):54508.
53. Kerr M, Cuevas A. Generalized analysis of the illumination intensity vs.
open‐circuit voltage of solar cells. Solar Energy. 2004;76(1–3):263‐267.
54. Sinton RA, Cuevas A. A quasi‐steady‐state open‐circuit voltage method
for solar cell characterization, In: Proceedings of 16st European
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference and Exhibition, Glasgow, 2000,
pp. 1152–1155.
55. Pysch D, Mette A, Glunz SW. A review and comparison of different
methods to determine the series resistance of solar cells. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells. 2007;91(18):1698‐1706.
56. Wolf M, Rauschenbach H. Series resistance effects on solar cell mea-
surements. Advanced Energy Conversion. 1963;3(2):455‐479.
57. Bivour M, Schröer S, Hermle M, Glunz SW. Silicon heterojunction rear
emitter solar cells: less restrictions on the optoelectrical properties of
front side TCOs. Sol. Energy Mater Sol. Cells. 2014;122:120‐129.
How to cite this article: Richter A, Benick J, Müller R, et al.
Tunnel oxide passivating electron contacts as full‐area rear
emitter of high‐efficiency p‐type silicon solar cells. Prog
Photovolt Res Appl. 2017;1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pip.2960