RESEARCH ARTICLE

www.solar-rrl.com

Fully Printed and Industrially Scalable Semitransparent

Organic Photovoltaic Modules: Navigating through
Material and Processing Constraints
Josua Wachsmuth, Andreas Distler,* Chao Liu, Thomas Heumüller, Yang Liu,
Catherine M. Aitchison, Alina Hauser, Michael Rossier, Amélie Robitaille,
Marc-Antoine Llobel, Pierre-Olivier Morin, Anaïs Thepaut, Charline Arrive,
Iain McCulloch, Yinhua Zhou, Christoph J. Brabec, and Hans-Joachim Egelhaaf

1. Introduction
While the power conversion efficiency (PCE) of organic photovoltaics (OPV) on
small-area lab cells has rapidly increased during the last few years, the perfor- A key target of organic photovoltaics (OPV)
mance on module level and the availability of OPV modules on the market is still research is to enable the implementation of
the technology along with its unique char-
limited, primarily due to specific constraints imposed by the industrial production
acteristics into everyday life applications
process. This work deals with the upscaling process of latest-generation OPV and thus to supplement existing solar cell
from small-area lab cells to fully solution-processed modules, which are com- technologies.[1–8] Intensive research effort
patible to industrial roll-to-roll (R2R) printing. This transfer is demonstrated step has been put into further enhancing the
by step from material selection and process optimization for every single layer of power conversion efficiency (PCE) of OPV
the stack (photoactive layer, charge transporting layers, and solution-processed and this approach has achieved great
success in recent years. This is underlined
top electrode)–including long-term stability investigations (thermal and light)–to
by reported certified cell efficiencies of
scaling up the device area by a factor of >100. Thus, a semitransparent OPV 19.2% PCE on 3 mm2 effective area and a
module with 10.8% PCE on 10.2 cm2 active area is achieved, which is among the PCE of 11.7% for an organic solar module
highest performances for semitransparent, fully solution-processed OPV mod- with an aperture area of 204 cm2.[9–11] On
ules. The individual developments all meet the requirements for industrial R2R the other hand, works on device stability
printing (green solvents, processing in air, annealing ≤140 °C, etc.), which and process scalability are still underrepre-
sented in the community.[1,12,13] However,
ensures that both the optimized layer stack and the fabrication process are fully
these aspects are at least as important
scalable and easily transferable to large-scale production.
for a successful commercialization of
the technology.[13–19] Furthermore, taking
full advantage of the technology involves
manufacturing of semitransparent devices.

J. Wachsmuth, A. Distler, C. Liu, T. Heumüller, C. J. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf Y. Liu, Y. Zhou

Department of Material Science Wuhan National Laboratory for Optoelectronics
Materials for Electronics and Energy Technology (i-MEET) Huazhong University of Science and Technology
Faculty of Engineering Wuhan 430074, China
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
91058 Erlangen, Germany C. M. Aitchison, I. McCulloch
E-mail: andreas.distler@fau.de Department of Chemistry
University of Oxford
T. Heumüller, C. J. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf Oxford OX1 3TA, UK
Helmholtz-Institute for Renewable Energy Erlangen-Nürnberg (HI ERN)
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH A. Hauser, M. Rossier
91058 Erlangen, Germany Avantama AG
8712 Staefa, Switzerland
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202300602. A. Robitaille, M.-A. Llobel, P.-O. Morin
Brilliant Matters
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH. This is an Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, QC G3A 2C8, Canada
open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, A. Thepaut, C. Arrive
provided the original work is properly cited. ASCA SAS
44105 Nantes CEDEX 4, France
DOI: 10.1002/solr.202300602

Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (1 of 9) © 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
As the research focus is further directed toward scalable
printed devices, ready for production, a new set of requirements
emerges, defining new processing constraints. Among those
requirements are the transfer to larger active device areas
and the compatibility with continuous deposition processes
as well as the connection of cells to form modules.[16,19–22]
Each of such processing constrains limits the range of param-
eters with which the device performance can be maximized.
Thus, with the set of constraints involved in large-area
roll-to-roll (R2R) printing, the performance of scalable devices
can be significantly reduced compared to those achieved at lab-
oratory scale. Many research efforts have already been made to
address problems related to specific constraints and achieving
promising performance. Among the most important require-
ments are processing with nonchlorinated solvents, film homo-
geneity, absence of defects, and processability in air from
solution–including a printed top electrode. For the Y6 system,
which is a common representative of a novel organic active layer
(AL) material component, the effective use of nonchlorinated
solvents was attained through modifying its side chains.[23–26]
Furthermore, solution-processed hole-transport layers (HTLs)
were recently reported, which can be coated on top of the AL
within the inverted (n–i–p) device structure with similar
performance compared to vacuum-processed molybdenum
oxide.[27,28] The next step is to enhance the compatibility to a
printed top electrode, which can vary depending on the
application. Several approaches have led to high-performing,
solution-processed semitransparent organic solar cells and
modules.[27–37]
However, in many cases these constraints and challenges have
been studied and addressed individually. In this work, we com-
bine all challenges to develop and present a new state-of-the-art
that is close to industrial application by fabricating fully printed,
industrially scalable, semitransparent devices with the latest gen-
eration of AL material.
With the aim of finding the best material system and layer
stack that provide both high efficiency and good stability, in this
work, we evaluate the most promising material candidates for
electron-transport layer (ETL), AL, HTL, and top electrode on
the basis of in-air doctor bladed cells and industrially feasible pro-
cesses. Once the best system is found, we make in-depth lifetime
studies regarding thermal and photostability. Finally, we transfer
the system from cell to module level and increase the device area
by two orders of magnitude to demonstrate a highly efficient
semitransparent OPV module that can be easily scaled up
industrially.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Development of a Scalable Multilayer Structure Processed
from Solution
For this optimization, the inverted (n–i–p) device architecture
(cf., Figure 1) is chosen, which is until now further developed
toward industrial printing with higher stability being one of
its current advantages.[16,29,38]
Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (2 of 9)
2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.solar-rrl.com
Figure 1. Targeted device architecture for scalable OPV devices with
solution-processed ETL, AL, and HTL as well as solution-processed
semitransparent top electrode.
2.1.1. ETL: Reducing Thermal Treatment While Maintaining
Long-Term Performance
As ETL material, metal oxide nanoparticles are state-of-the-art for
industrial OPV fabrication because sol–gel zinc oxide (ZnO)
requires high annealing temperatures, which are not compatible
with roll-to-roll (R2R) printing on flexible substrates.[39–41] In
the following, we evaluate nanoparticle inks of the two most
prominent materials–zinc oxide and tin oxide (SnO2).
Too rough bottom electrodes and the edges of P1 laser
lines–with which the bottom electrode is structured into separate
parts–can penetrate through the layer stack and induce shunts in
the device. This can be circumvented, to a certain extent, by
increasing the film thickness of the ETL. However, using a
thicker layer can potentially limit the charge transport properties.
For metal oxides, such as ZnO, a thermal treatment after
layer deposition can significantly improve these properties and
increase the stability.[42] However, taking an industrial scaling
process into account, two constraints appear: first, polyethylene
terephthalate (PET)-based substrates are the industrial state-of-
the-art for R2R-fabricated flexible OPV, and even for heat-
stabilized PET, processing temperatures are limited to 140 °C.
Second, applying heat in a running production line implies a
time limit, depending on the length of the heating unit and
the targeted throughput speed, which allows only few minutes
of thermal treatment. As such, we have studied the usability
of materials for two cases of thermal treatment: a common
lab process optimized for high performance (30 min at 200 °C)
and the scalable process, which can be transferred to large-scale
production (2 min at 120 °C).
Taking these processing constraints regarding temperature
treatment into account, and considering additionally the
effect of ETL thickness, we tested the long-term stability of
PM7:BTP-4F-12-based cells under light exposure for layers with
a thickness of 20 nm (thin layers) and 40 nm (thicker layers). The
temporal evolution of the PCE is presented in Figure 2. The ini-
tial performance values and the evolution of the individual cell
parameters can be found in Table S1 and Figure S2, Supporting
Information, respectively. It can be observed that the light stabil-
ity of the devices is high for both metal oxides (ZnO and SnO2), if
strong thermal treatment (200 °C, 30 min) is applied (Figure 2a).
In this case, the ETL thickness also has no big influence on the
device performance after 250 h of light degradation. However, if
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 2. Degradation behavior of solar cells (stack: glass/ITO/ETL/PM7:BTP-4F-12/MoO3/Ag) with two different thicknesses (thin: 20 nm, thick: 40 nm)
of ZnO and SnO2 as ETL under exposure of metal halide lamp light (under nitrogen, with applied UV filter). The ETL has been thermally treated at either
a) 200 °C for 30 min or b) 120 °C for 2 min.
only 2 min at 120 °C of thermal treatment is applied to the ETL
(see Figure 2b), only the ZnO layer shows a good light stability,
whereas the SnO2-based devices lose performance very rapidly
(mainly due to losses in JSC and VOC), which is even more pro-
nounced for thicker layers. This suggests that SnO2 generally
needs higher annealing temperatures to allow for stable devices,
and that thicker ETLs further enhance the need for higher anneal-
ing times and/or temperatures. Consequently, a thin ZnO layer is
chosen as the most suitable ETL for upscaling. Furthermore, the
photocatalytic effect, which has been reported to cause instabilities
in NFA-based devices using ZnO as ETL,[43–47] is circumvented by
application of a UV filter (spectrum shown in Figure S1,
Supporting Information), which absorbs sufficient light below
380 nm during light exposure to prevent the effect.
2.1.2. Photoactive Layer: Balancing Layer Thickness and
Performance
When focusing on compatibility of the photoactive layer to
large-scale manufacturing of semitransparent devices, apart
from performance and stability, further aspects require consid-
eration: processability with nonchlorinated (“green”) solvents,
lowest possible material cost, and film thickness dependence.
One of the most prominent new generation active layer
systems is PM6:Y6. It is commonly dissolved in chloroform,
which– being a chlorinated solvent–implies greater environmen-
tal concerns. A processing constraint of Y6 has been its preag-
gregation in certain solvents, including the nonchlorinated
solvent o-xylene, leading to large Y6 domains in the film and thus
to reduced performance.[48,49] However, this challenge has been
overcome by modifying the side chains of Y6.[23–26] One of those
tailored materials is Y6-C12 (BTP-4F-12), which enables favor-
able processability in o-xylene and thus provides excellent device
performances.[23]
Taking advantage of the fast and cost-effective manufacturing
enabled by high-throughput R2R coating, the costs of the final
product are estimated to be mainly driven by the material
prices.[50–55] Therefore, it is important to select materials with
a low synthetic complexity that can be synthesized with simple
processes and a low number of synthetic routes.[52,56–60]
Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (3 of 9)
2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.solar-rrl.com
Finally, R2R processing of OPV requires a certain minimum
active layer thickness, first to prevent the formation of shunts–
caused by spikes from layers underneath or from contact-based
printing processes of the top layers (e.g., screen printing of the
top electrode), and second to increase the amount of directly
absorbed light in semitransparent devices, where no opaque
back-reflecting layer can be used to allow the light to pass
through the active layer a second time, which has a huge impact
on the produced photocurrent and therefore greatly improves
device performance.
As increasing the AL film thickness (in the range above
100 nm toward 300 nm) is often accompanied by a fill factor
(FF) loss, an experiment is carried out in which three different
donor materials (PM7, PM6, and PTQ10) are blended with the
acceptor BTP-4F-12 and the effect of active layer thickness on the
solar cell performance is investigated. As can be seen in Figure 3,
PM6 shows a high PCE with a thin layer thickness of 115 nm, but
features a linear decrease in efficiency with increasing film thick-
ness, mainly due to a decreasing FF, which is also observed for
PM7. PTQ10 and PM7, on the other hand, slightly underperform
for very thin films compared to the other donors; however,
PTQ10 displays a remarkable steadiness in performance for
thicker layers, and thus provides a wider processing window,
which is well in accordance with different studies, where low
thickness dependencies for the FF are observed in combination
with PTQ10.[56,61–64] This underlines its suitability for upscaling–
PTQ10 is able to form a high-performing device within a broad
thickness range and is a cost-effective material–and was
thus selected as active donor material of choice for fully
solution-processed, semitransparent devices.
2.1.3. HTL: Energetic and Chemical Compatibility with AL and
Top Electrode
A critical role for achieving scalable, solution-processed,
semitransparent, highly efficient solar cells plays the HTL.
The new, high performance active layer systems with their
deep energy levels require an HTL with a high work function.
So far, PEDOT:PSS is the industrial state-of-the art for inverted
OPV modules; however, when coated on top of the AL, its
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com

Figure 3. a) PCE, b) open-circuit voltage (VOC), c) short-circuit current ( JSC), and d) FF of solar cell devices with the stack glass/ITO/ZnO/Donor:BTP-4F-
12/MoO3/Ag using three different donor materials (PM6, PM7, and PTQ10) and different layer thicknesses.

incompatibility with novel nonfullerene acceptors (NFAs) and

low-highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO)-level polymers,
which is mainly ascribed to its mismatching energy level,
results in significant performance loss, especially in open-circuit
voltage (VOC).[33,65,66] Furthermore, its acidity and hygroscopic
nature have been reported to cause device instability.[67–73]
Many attempts have been made to find energetically compatible
HTLs for new NFA-based high-performance active layer systems,
of which one common strategy has been the use of metal oxides
in combination with PEDOT:PSS.[65,74,75] Recently, the problem
could be solved by synthesizing a new PEDOT-based material
system that uses a per-fluorinated ionomer (PFI) instead of
PSS as counter ion.[27,28] We employ one of these materials,
PEDOT:F (where “F” stands for the PFI), and test its potential
for scalable devices. Additionally, we test a mixture of standard
PEDOT:PSS and PFI with the aim of tuning the HTL work func-
tion by varying the PFI-to-PEDOT:PSS ratio. While this has been
Figure 4. Work function measurements (Kelvin probe, left axis, blue
done in different contexts for organic semiconducting devices, circles) on films of the PEDOT:PSS:PFI mixture coated on ITO, where
e.g., within the conventional (p–i–n) structure of organic solar the w/w% content of PFI within the mixture is varied. Additionally, the
cells, we apply this method for the inverted architecture.[76–81] VOC of PTQ10-based devices with the respective PEDOT:PSS:PFI mixture
The effect that the work function increases with an increased as HTL is shown (right axis, red triangles). (Coating 100 w% PFI as HTL
amount of PFI added to PEDOT:PSS is demonstrated through leads to nonfunctional devices).
Kelvin probe measurements of the corresponding films, applied
by doctor blading (Figure 4). When the same films are integrated of the device increases in a similar manner as the work function
into PTQ10-based solar cells, it can be observed that, within a of the HTL, which shows the high influence and necessity of
range of around 50 w/w% of PFI within the mixture, the VOC high work function HTLs to energetically adapt to the active layer

Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (4 of 9) © 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
(Figure 4). It can be further observed that above a certain ratio of
PFI added to the mixture, the resistance of the film increases
strongly (cf., Figure S3, Supporting Information), which, in addi-
tion to the VOC, has a high influence on the overall performance.
Thus, an optimum PCE is reached for the blends with a ratio of
57.2 w/w% of PFI within the mixture (cf., Figure S3, Supporting
Information) and therefore this blend is selected as HTL for the
next experiment in comparison to PEDOT:F.
The resulting performance of the different material
approaches is displayed in Figure 5. PEDOT:F fulfills the
necessary requirements with its high work function (5.7 eV)
and clearly outperforms PEDOT:PSS in VOC (0.86 V) and FF
(66.4%). Furthermore, through blending PEDOT:PSS with
57.2 w/w% PFI the energy barrier can be overcome as well
and a similar performance as with PEDOT:F can be achieved.
2.1.4. Solution-Processed Electrode: Semitransparency and
Compatibility to All Other Layers
With the goal of making a fully solution-processed semitranspar-
ent stack, we replace the evaporated silver electrode (Ag) with
silver nanowires (AgNWs). An AgNW ink based on isopropanol
Figure 5. a) J–V curves and b) PCEs of PTQ10-based solar cells with three different PEDOT compositions as HTL, namely, PEDOT:PSS, PEDOT:F, and
PEDOT:PSS:PFI with 57.2 w/w% PFI.
Figure 6. a) J–V curves and b) PCE of semitransparent solar cells with the stack glass/ITO/ZnO/PTQ10:BTP-4F-12/HTL/AgNW with PEDOT:F and
PEDOT:PSS:PFI as HTL.
Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (5 of 9)
2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.solar-rrl.com
(IPA) is chosen, due to its good compatibility to adjacent layers as
well as its good coatability, transparency, and conductivity. We
test both PEDOT:F and the PEDOT:PSS:PFI blend with respect
to their compatibility with the AgNW top electrode. It can be
observed in Figure 6 that the PEDOT:PSS:PFI–even though
electronically compatible to the adjacent active layer–loses its
performance with AgNW coated directly on top. In contrast,
PEDOT:F is compatible and consequently the selected HTL
material to be employed with the AgNW electrode.
2.2. Stability Evaluation: Exposure to Different Degradation
Sources
Semitransparent solar cells of the selected fully solution-
processed architecture are tested against high temperature
(2 h at 120 °C–representing the conditions of a typical industrial
secondary encapsulation process, e.g., between glass panes)
followed by 200 h of constant illumination with a metal halide
lamp (representing device operation in the sun). As ternary active
layer compositions have been shown to be able to improve
microstructure and device performance, we test the selected
active system PTQ10:BTP-4F-12 with and without PC71BM as
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.solar-rrl.com

ternary component.[82,83] Figure 7a shows the relative PCE of the
devices during the course of degradation (i.e., their PCE after
degradation normalized to their PCE at t = 0; the performance
parameters (PCE, VOC, JSC, and FF) at t = 0 are shown in
Figure S4, Supporting Information). While the binary devices
maintain >80% of their initial performance, the ternary devices
maintain 90% of their initial PCE, which confirms the positive
effect of PC71BM on the stability.
Furthermore, a similar set of devices is exposed to 85 °C for
200 h to evaluate their behavior under prolonged elevated tem-
perature. As shown in Figure 7b, the obtained results are similar
to the previous degradation experiment. This time, devices with
the binary active layer composition degrade by slightly more than
20% of their initial performance (cf. Figure S4, Supporting
Information), while the ternary system again provides superior
stability with relative PCEs of >90% after degradation.
2.3. Evaluation of Area Scalability: Semitransparent OPV
Modules
To validate the scalability of the developed layer stack, solar cells
and modules of different sizes are fabricated and investigated.
Starting from individual solar cells with an active area of
9 mm2, we increase the device area by a factor of >100 to fabri-
cate modules with eight cells connected in series and an active
area of 10.2 cm2 (see Figure S5, Supporting Information, for
detailed information about the module layout). The performance
of all devices is presented in Table 1. Upon scaling the device type

Figure 7. Comparison of devices with binary (PTQ10:BTP-4F-12) and ternary (PTQ10:BTP-4F-12:PC71BM) active layer within the optimized semitrans-
parent, fully solution-processed stack (glass/ITO/ZnO/active layer/PEDOT:F/AgNW). Relative PCE after degradation compared to initial performance for
two degradation types: a) devices exposed to thermal stress (2 h, 120 °C) and subsequent constant irradiation (200 h, 40 °C); b) devices exposed to
prolonged heat (200 h, 85 °C).

Table 1. Photovoltaic device performance of cells and a respective module of >100 times larger active area. The performance of the best cell is presented
together with mean values averaged over six devices (in brackets).

Active area [cm2] PCE on active area [%] VOC/number of cells [V] ISC/cell area [mA cm 2] FF [%]
Cells 0.09 9.74 (9.63  0.09) 0.85 (0.85  0.00) 18.37 (18.30  0.17) 62.2 (61.8  0.4)
Module (eight cells in series) 10.17 9.75 0.85 18.31 62.7

Figure 8. a) J–V curve and b) photograph of a fully solution-processed and fully air-processed, semitransparent module on glass/ITO with eight cells
connected in series and a total active area of 10.17 cm2 with back-reflector.

Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (6 of 9) © 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
and area from 0.1 cm2 small cells to 10 cm2 modules, no perfor-
mance loss is observed, which underlines the excellent scalability
of the selected materials and layer stack.
In Figure 8, the I–V curve of a 10 cm2 semitransparent solar
module (a) and a photograph (b) is shown. The module has an
average visible transmittance (AVT) of 11.3%. The transmittance
spectrum of the module is shown in Figure S6, Supporting
Information. With an applied back-reflector, a higher Isc per cell
area of 20.35 mA cm 2 is achieved, leading to a module PCE of
10.8% per active area and 10.2% with respect to the total module
area with a geometrical FF (GFF) of 94.4%, which is among the
highest performances of fully solution-processed semitranspar-
ent modules. This is especially notable because all process parts
are undertaken in air, which underlines the industrial relevance
of the system.
3. Conclusions
In this work, we presented a step-by-step development to achieve
an OPV layer stack that fulfills the requirements for manufactur-
ing stable, semitransparent, high-performance organic photovol-
taic modules with industrially compatible fabrication processes.
We pointed out challenges and considerations for each of the
printed layers that arise when moving to scalable coating and
selected suitable materials by evaluating and maximizing their
performance and stability. Finally, the transition from small area
solar cells to a 10 cm2 module by using our developed environ-
mental manufacturing process has been demonstrated and
yielded a solar module with 10.8% efficiency, which is currently
among the highest values for semitransparent, fully solution-
processed OPV modules. This, in combination with a good sta-
bility, corroborates that OPV finally starts to become competitive
on the market and brings the technology one step closer to a suc-
cessful large-scale commercialization.
4. Experimental Section
Materials: As functionalized substrates, glass coated with indium tin
oxide (ITO, 15 Ω sq 1) and prepatterned was used. The coated and
prepatterned substrates were acquired from Liaoning Yike Precision
New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. SnO2 (N-31) and ZnO (N-10-Flex)
were provided by Avantama. The active materials, PTQ10, PM6, PM7,
and BTP-4F-C12, were supplied by Brilliant Matters.
PC71BM was purchased from Nano-C. MoO3 was acquired from Carl
Roth and Ag from Evochem Advanced Materials, respectively. PEDOT:F
was provided by the research group of Prof. Yinhua Zhou at the
Wuhan National Laboratory for Optoelectronics, Huazhong University
of Science and Technology (China). PEDOT:PSS (HTL Solar) was acquired
from Heraeus and Nafion was acquired from Sigma–Aldrich (Merck).
BM-HTL-1 was supplied by Brilliant Matters. Ink-Y AgNWs were acquired
from Cambrios. ECOS AgNWs were obtained from HeiQ RAS.
Device Fabrication: Prior to application, the substrates for all devices
were wiped with a microfibre tissue that was soaked with toluene. For
the solar cells (Section 2.1 and 2.2), the ETLs, ZnO and SnO2, were soni-
cated for 5 min and filtered with a 0.45 μm polypropylene filter, respec-
tively. Subsequently, the solutions were applied onto the glass/ITO
substrates by doctor blading in air followed by a thermal treatment
(140 °C, 3 min, in air) unless stated otherwise in the results and discussion
section.
For the active layers with PM7 or PM6 (and PTQ-10 for Section 2.1.2) as
donors and BTP-4F-12 as acceptor, the donor and acceptor were mixed
Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (7 of 9)
2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.solar-rrl.com
with a ratio of 1:1.2, dissolved in o-xylene and stirred overnight at room
temperature under nitrogen atmosphere. For the PTQ10-based binary
(and ternary) solar cells, PTQ10, BTP-4F-12 (and PC71BM) were mixed
and dissolved in o-xylene with a ratio of 1:1(:0.2) and stirred overnight
at room temperature under nitrogen atmosphere. All active layers were
applied by blade coating in air. For the active layer variation experiment
(see Section 2.1.2), different coating speeds ranging from 5 to 90 mms
at a substrate temperature of 65 °C were used to obtain different active
layer thicknesses. After deposition, the films were thermally treated under
nitrogen for 10 min at 100 °C. The HTLs were fabricated by 1) thermal
evaporation of 10 nm MoO3 or 2) blade coating PEDOT:F (or PEDOT:
PSS:PFI). The PEDOT:F was deposited on the active layer at 45 °C
substrate temperature without further pre- or posttreatment. The
PEDOT:PSS:PFI mixture was diluted in 4 μL isopropanol per μL of the mix-
ture and was coated at 70 °C without posttreatment. The top electrodes
were fabricated by 1) a thermally evaporated 100 nm silver electrode
(Ag) or 2) a blade-coated AgNW film (Ink-Y) at 65 °C substrate tempera-
ture and thermally treated at 120 °C for 3 min.
For the scalable, air-processed solar module and the respective cells
(Section 2.3), substrate preparation and blade coating of ETL was done
in a similar manner than the solar cells in Section 2.1 and 2.2. For the
active layer PTQ10, BTP-4F-12 and PC71BM were mixed with a ratio of
1:1:0.2 and dissolved in o-xylene with a total concentration of
25 mg mL 1 (1:1:0.2) and stirred at 70 °C for 30 min and then cooled down
and stirred at 40 °C overnight. The active layer was coated on a substrate
heated with 50 °C temperature forming a dry film thickness of 185  10 nm
and subsequently thermally treated with 130 °C for 3 min in air. As HTL,
BM-HTL-1 was doctor-bladed on top at 35 °C without any pre- or posttreat-
ment. As top electrode, ECOS AgNWs were filtered with a 10 μm filter and
coated at 40 °C substrate temperature without further treatment. The pat-
terning lines for the module (P1, P2, P3) were done with a femto-second
laser.
Characterization: Characterizations of the solar cells and modules were
done with a solar simulator from LOT Quantum Design (LS0916 AAA). All
devices (also the semitransparent ones) were irradiated from the
glass/ITO side during measurement and light degradation. Current–
voltage characteristics and conductivity measurements were obtained
from B2901A sourcemeter from Keysight Technologies Inc. Light degrada-
tion measurements were undertaken under nitrogen with applied UV filter
through exposure with metal halide lamp light. Thermal degradation and
thermal stress test were carried out under nitrogen atmosphere. Film
thickness measurements were performed with a μsurf custom confocal
microscope from NanoFocus AG. Work function measurements on
ITO substrates were done with scanning Kelvin probe system SKP5050
from KP Technology using freshly peeled HOPG as reference.
Transmission spectra were taken with a Lambda 950 UV/VIS
Spectrometer from PerkinElmer including an integrating sphere.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information is available from the Wiley Online Library or from
the author.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement nos.
952911 (“BOOSTER”) and 101007084 (“CITYSOLAR”) and would like
to thank all the project partners from the “BOOSTER” project for the col-
laboration and their great support. The authors also acknowledge
funding received within the “SINO-GERMAN MOBILITY PROGRAMME”
(Mobility Programme, GZ M-0160) from the Sino-German Center for
Research Promotion (SGC) and thank the research group of Prof.
Yinhua Zhou at the Wuhan National Laboratory for Optoelectronics,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology (China), for providing
PEDOT:F. The authors acknowledge HeiQ RAS for providing ECOS
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
AgNW ink. The authors acknowledge funding from the German Federal
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action via the ZIM project
“OPV4IoT” (FKZ: 16KN098724). The authors also acknowledge the
“Solar Factory of the Future” as part of the Energy Campus Nuremberg
(EnCN), which is supported by the Bavarian State Government
(FKZ 20.2-3410.5-4-5). Y.Z. acknowledges funding from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 51973074). H.-J.E. and
C.J.B. acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
INFRAIA program under grant agreement no. 101008701 (“EMERGE”).
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Keywords
solution-processing, ambient air, organic photovoltaics (OPVs), roll-to-roll
(R2R)-compatibility, semitransparent modules, upscaling
Received: August 1, 2023
Revised: August 14, 2023
Published online: September 5, 2023
[1] M. Moser, A. Wadsworth, N. Gasparini, I. McCulloch, Adv. Energy
Mater. 2021, 11, 2100056.
[2] G. Zhang, F. R. Lin, F. Qi, T. Heumüller, A. Distler, H.-J. Egelhaaf,
N. Li, P. C. Y. Chow, C. J. Brabec, A. K.-Y. Jen, H.-L. Yip, Chem.
Rev. 2022, 122, 14180.
[3] Y. Cui, L. Hong, J. Hou, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 38815.
[4] R. Meitzner, U. S. Schubert, H. Hoppe, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11,
2002551.
[5] F. M. van der Staaij, I. M. van Keulen, E. von Hauff, Sol. RRL 2021, 5,
2100167.
[6] I. Burgués-Ceballos, L. Lucera, P. Tiwana, K. Ocytko, L. W. Tan,
S. Kowalski, J. Snow, A. Pron, H. Bürckstümmer, N. Blouin,
G. Morse, Joule 2021, 5, 2261.
[7] S.-Y. Chang, P. Cheng, G. Li, Y. Yang, Joule 2018, 2, 1039.
[8] C. Sun, R. Xia, H. Shi, H. Yao, X. Liu, J. Hou, F. Huang, H.-L. Yip,
Y. Cao, Joule 2018, 2, 1816.
[9] L. Zhu, M. Zhang, J. Xu, C. Li, J. Yan, G. Zhou, W. Zhong, T. Hao,
J. Song, X. Xue, Z. Zhou, R. Zeng, H. Zhu, C.-C. Chen,
R. C. I. MacKenzie, Y. Zou, J. Nelson, Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, F. Liu,
Nat. Mater. 2022, 21, 656.
[10] A. Distler, C. J. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2021,
29, 24.
[11] M. A. Green, E. D. Dunlop, M. Yoshita, N. Kopidakis, K. Bothe,
G. Siefer, X. Hao, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2023, 31, 651.
[12] L. Hong, H. Yao, Y. Cui, R. Yu, Y.-W. Lin, T.-W. Chen, Y. Xu, J. Qin,
C.-S. Hsu, Z. Ge, J. Hou, Small 2021, 17, 2101133.
[13] C. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf, M. Salvador, J. Mater. Res. 2018, 33, 1839.
[14] S. Song, J. Lu, W. Ye, B. Zhang, X. Liu, G. Xing, S. Stability Zhang, Sci.
China Chem. 2021, 64, 1441.
[15] S. Park, T. Kim, S. Yoon, C. W. Koh, H. Y. Woo, H. J. Son, Adv. Mater.
2020, 32, 2002217.
Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (8 of 9)
2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.solar-rrl.com
[16] A. S. Gertsen, M. F. Castro, R. R. Søndergaard, J. W. Andreasen, Flex.
Print. Electron. 2020, 5, 014004.
[17] X. Huang, D. Fan, S. R. Forrest, Org. Electron. 2021, 97, 106276.
[18] W. Greenbank, N. Djeddaoui, E. Destouesse, J. Lamminaho,
M. Prete, L. Boukezzi, T. Ebel, L. Bessissa, H.-G. Rubahn,
V. Turkovic, M. Madsen, Energy Technol. 2020, 8, 2000295.
[19] A. Colsmann, H. Röhm, C. Sprau, Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 2000015.
[20] C. J. Brabec, A. Distler, X. Du, H.-J. Egelhaaf, J. Hauch, T. Heumueller,
N. Li, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 2001864.
[21] G. Bernardo, T. Lopes, D. G. Lidzey, A. Mendes, Adv. Energy Mater.
2021, 11, 2100342.
[22] S.-L. Lim, K.-H. Ong, J. Li, L. Yang, Y.-F. Chang, H.-F. Meng, X. Wang,
Z.-K. Chen, Org. Electron. 2017, 43, 55.
[23] L. Hong, H. Yao, Z. Wu, Y. Cui, T. Zhang, Y. Xu, R. Yu, Q. Liao, B. Gao,
K. Xian, H. Y. Woo, Z. Ge, J. Hou, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1903441.
[24] C. Kim, S. Chen, J. S. Park, G.-U. Kim, H. Kang, S. Lee, T. N.-L. Phan,
S.-K. Kwon, Y.-H. Kim, B. J. Kim, J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 24622.
[25] Y.-J. Su, H. Nie, C.-F. Chang, S.-C. Huang, Y.-H. Huang, T.-W. Chen,
K.-K. Hsu, T.-Y. Lee, H.-M. Shih, C.-W. Ko, J.-T. Chen, C.-S. Hsu, ACS
Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 59043.
[26] S. Dong, T. Jia, K. Zhang, J. Jing, F. Huang, Joule 2020, 4, 2004.
[27] Y. Jiang, X. Dong, L. Sun, T. Liu, F. Qin, C. Xie, P. Jiang, L. Hu, X. Lu,
X. Zhou, W. Meng, N. Li, C. J. Brabec, Y. Zhou, Nat. Energy 2022, 7,
352.
[28] W.-L. Li, C.-H. Hou, C.-M. Yang, K.-W. Tsai, J.-L. Wu, Y.-T. Hsiao,
C. Hanmandlu, C.-W. Chu, C.-H. Tsai, C.-Y. Liao, J.-J. Shyue,
Y.-M. Chang, J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9, 17967.
[29] N. Chaturvedi, N. Gasparini, D. Corzo, J. Bertrandie, N. Wehbe,
J. Troughton, D. Baran, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009996.
[30] J. Huang, Z. Lu, J. He, H. Hu, Q. Liang, K. Liu, Z. Ren, Y. Zhang,
H. Yu, Z. Zheng, G. Li, Energy Environ. Sci. 2023, 16, 1251.
[31] W. Wei, X. Dong, X. Zhou, X. Lu, Y. Liu, J. Chen, C. Xie, Y. Zhou, Adv.
Mater. Interfaces 2022, 9, 2201427.
[32] E. N. Güler, A. Distler, R. Basu, C. J. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf, Flex. Print.
Electron. 2022, 7, 025003.
[33] Y. W. Han, H. S. Lee, D. K. Moon, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021,
13, 19085.
[34] K. C. Tam, P. Kubis, P. Maisch, C. J. Brabec, H.-J. Egelhaaf, Prog.
Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2022, 30, 528.
[35] H. Lu, J. Lin, N. Wu, S. Nie, Q. Luo, C.-Q. Ma, Z. Cui, Appl. Phys. Lett.
2015, 106, 093302.
[36] G. Ji, Y. Wang, Q. Luo, K. Han, M. Xie, L. Zhang, N. Wu, J. Lin, S. Xiao,
Y.-Q. Li, L.-Q. Luo, C.-Q. Ma, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 943.
[37] L. Sun, W. Zeng, C. Xie, L. Hu, X. Dong, F. Qin, W. Wang, T. Liu,
X. Jiang, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhou, Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, 1907840.
[38] K. Wang, C. Liu, T. Meng, C. Yi, X. Gong, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2016, 45,
2937.
[39] Y. Sun, J. H. Seo, C. J. Takacs, J. Seifter, A. J. Heeger, Adv. Mater. 2011,
23, 1679.
[40] Z. R. Khan, M. S. Khan, M. Zulfequar, M. Shahid Khan, Mater. Sci.
Appl. 2011, 02, 340.
[41] S. K. Hau, H.-L. Yip, N. S. Baek, J. Zou, K. O’Malley, A. K.-Y. Jen, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 2008, 92, 253301.
[42] A. Sharma, S. E. Watkins, G. Andersson, D. A. Lewis, Energy Technol.
2014, 2, 462.
[43] Y. Jiang, L. Sun, F. Jiang, C. Xie, L. Hu, X. Dong, F. Qin, T. Liu, L. Hu,
X. Jiang, Y. Zhou, Mater. Horiz. 2019, 6, 1438.
[44] S. Park, H. J. Son, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 25830.
[45] B. Liu, Y. Han, Z. Li, H. Gu, L. Yan, Y. Lin, Q. Luo, S. Yang, C.-Q. Ma,
Sol. RRL 2021, 5, 2000638.
[46] Y. Han, H. Dong, W. Pan, B. Liu, X. Chen, R. Huang, Z. Li, F. Li,
Q. Luo, J. Zhang, Z. Wei, C.-Q. Ma, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
2021, 13, 17869.
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
[47] B. Liu, X. Su, Y. Lin, Z. Li, L. Yan, Y. Han, Q. Luo, J. Fang, S. Yang,
H. Tan, C.-Q. Ma, Adv. Sci. 2022, 9, 2104588.
[48] G. Yao, Y. Ge, X. Xiao, L. Zhang, N. Yi, H. Luo, S. Yuan, W. Zhou, ACS
Appl. Energy Mater. 2022, 5, 1193.
[49] M. Sun, K.-N. Zhang, J.-W. Qiao, L.-H. Wang, M. Li, P. Lu, W. Qin,
Z. Xiao, L. Zhang, X.-T. Hao, L. Ding, X.-Y. Du, Adv. Energy Mater.
2023, 13, 2203465.
[50] B. Lee, L. Lahann, Y. Li, S. R. Forrest, Sustainable Energy Fuels 2020, 4,
5765.
[51] B. Azzopardi, C. J. M. Emmott, A. Urbina, F. C. Krebs, J. Mutale,
J. Nelson, Energy Environ. Sci. 2011, 4, 3741.
[52] J. Guo, J. Min, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1802521.
[53] F. C. Krebs, T. Tromholt, M. Jørgensen, Nanoscale 2010, 2, 873.
[54] F. Machui, M. Hösel, N. Li, G. D. Spyropoulos, T. Ameri,
R. R. Søndergaard, M. Jørgensen, A. Scheel, D. Gaiser, K. Kreul,
D. Lenssen, M. Legros, N. Lemaitre, M. Vilkman, M. Välimäki,
S. Nordman, C. J. Brabec, F. C. Krebs, Energy Environ. Sci. 2014, 7,
2792.
[55] L. W. T. Ng, S. W. Lee, D. W. Chang, J. M. Hodgkiss, D. Vak, Adv.
Mater. Technol. 2022, 7, 2101556.
[56] X. Li, F. Pan, C. Sun, M. Zhang, Z. Wang, J. Du, J. Wang, M. Xiao,
L. Xue, Z.-G. Zhang, C. Zhang, F. Liu, Y. Li, Nat. Commun. 2019,
10, 519.
[57] J. Min, Y. N. Luponosov, C. Cui, B. Kan, H. Chen, X. Wan, Y. Chen,
S. A. Ponomarenko, Y. Li, C. J. Brabec, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7,
1700465.
[58] R. Po, J. Roncali, J. Mater. Chem. C 2016, 4, 3677.
[59] R. Po, G. Bianchi, C. Carbonera, A. Pellegrino, Macromolecules 2015,
48, 453.
[60] T. P. Osedach, T. L. Andrew, V. Bulović, Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6,
711.
[61] C. H. Y. Ho, Y. Pei, Y. Qin, C. Zhang, Z. Peng, I. Angunawela,
A. L. Jones, H. Yin, H. F. Iqbal, J. R. Reynolds, K. Gundogdu,
H. Ade, S. K. So, F. So, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 47961.
[62] X. Li, J. Yao, I. Angunawela, C. Sun, L. Xue, A. Liebman-Pelaez, C. Zhu,
C. Yang, Z.-G. Zhang, H. Ade, Y. Li, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8,
1800815.
[63] C. Sun, F. Pan, H. Bin, J. Zhang, L. Xue, B. Qiu, Z. Wei, Z.-G. Zhang,
Y. Li, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 743.
[64] Z. Luo, C. Sun, S. Chen, Z.-G. Zhang, K. Wu, B. Qiu, C. Yang, Y. Li,
C. Yang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1800856.
Sol. RRL 2023, 7, 2300602 2300602 (9 of 9)
2367198x, 2023, 21, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/solr.202300602 by Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Research Center, Wiley Online Library on [23/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.solar-rrl.com
[65] N.-W. Teng, C.-H. Li, W.-C. Lo, Y.-S. Tsai, C.-Y. Liao, Y.-W. You,
H.-L. Ho, W.-L. Li, C.-C. Lee, W.-C. Lin, Y.-M. Chang, Sol. RRL
2020, 4, 2000223.
[66] Y. W. Han, S. J. Jeon, H. S. Lee, H. Park, K. S. Kim, H.-W. Lee,
D. K. Moon, Adv. Energy Mater. 2019, 9, 1902065.
[67] J. Cameron, P. J. Skabara, Mater. Horiz. 2020, 7, 1759.
[68] A. Garcia, G. C. Welch, E. L. Ratcliff, D. S. Ginley, G. C. Bazan,
D. C. Olson, Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 5368.
[69] H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, C.-K. Mai, J. Seifter, T.-Q. Nguyen, G. C. Bazan,
A. J. Heeger, ACS Nano 2015, 9, 371.
[70] S. Kim, S. Yeon Kim, M. Hyun Chung, J. Kim, J. Hyun Kim, J. Mater.
Chem. C 2015, 3, 5859.
[71] Y. Meng, Z. Hu, N. Ai, Z. Jiang, J. Wang, J. Peng, Y. Cao, ACS Appl.
Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 5122.
[72] S. R. Dupont, F. Novoa, E. Voroshazi, R. H. Dauskardt, Adv. Funct.
Mater. 2014, 24, 1325.
[73] S. R. Dupont, E. Voroshazi, P. Heremans, R. H. Dauskardt, in 2012
38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., Austin, TX, June 2012,
pp. 003259–003262, https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318272.
[74] J. Bertrandie, A. Sharma, N. Gasparini, D. R. Villalva, S. H. K. Paleti,
N. Wehbe, J. Troughton, D. Baran, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2022, 5,
1023.
[75] W. Zeng, C. Xie, W. Wang, S. Li, X. Jiang, S. Xiong, L. Sun, F. Qin,
H. Han, Y. Zhou, Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 1900480.
[76] N. S. Alharbi, C. Wang, F. E. Alsaadi, S. O. Rabah, Z. Tan, Adv.
Sustainable Syst. 2020, 4, 2000054.
[77] S.-H. Jeong, S.-H. Woo, T.-H. Han, M.-H. Park, H. Cho, Y.-H. Kim,
H. Cho, H. Kim, S. Yoo, T.-W. Lee, NPG Asia Mater. 2017, 9, e411.
[78] T.-W. Lee, Y. Chung, O. Kwon, J.-J. Park, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17,
390.
[79] H. Tang, Y. Shang, W. Zhou, Z. Peng, Z. Ning, Sol. RRL 2019, 3,
1800256.
[80] C. T. Howells, S. Saylan, H. Kim, K. Marbou, T. Aoyama, A. Nakao,
M. Uchiyama, I. D. W. Samuel, D.-W. Kim, M. S. Dahlem, P. André,
J. Mater. Chem. A 2018, 6, 16012.
[81] X. Hou, Q. Li, T. Cheng, L. Yu, F. Wang, J. Lin, S. Dai, Y. Li, Z. Tan,
J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 18727.
[82] M.-A. Pan, T.-K. Lau, Y. Tang, Y.-C. Wu, T. Liu, K. Li, M.-C. Chen, X. Lu,
W. Ma, C. Zhan, J. Mater. Chem. A 2019, 7, 20713.
[83] Z. Peng, K. Jiang, Y. Qin, M. Li, N. Balar, B. T. O’Connor, H. Ade,
L. Ye, Y. Geng, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003506.
© 2023 The Authors. Solar RRL published by Wiley-VCH GmbH