arxiv: 2605.07718 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Recognition: no theorem link

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

Francesc Xavier Capella-Guardi\`a , Jolanda Simone Mu\"uller , Muhammad Ahsan Saeed , Xabier Rodr\'iguez-Mart\'inez , Miquel Casademont-Vi\~nas , Albert Harillo-Ba\~nos , Jaime Mart\'in , Jenny Nelson

show 2 more authors

Alejandro R. Go\~ni Mariano Campoy-Quiles

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 03:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords organic photovoltaicsRAINBOW solar cellsternary blendsmultijunction devicesspectral splittingblade coatingpower conversion efficiencyorganic solar cells

0 comments

The pith

Ternary blending in side-by-side RAINBOW solar cells raises efficiency from 12.9% in single-junction devices to 17.3% in three-junction devices.

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

This paper tests binary and ternary active layers with bandgaps from 1.98 to 1.16 eV to see if ternary mixing can overcome losses in the widest and narrowest gap systems for a RAINBOW spectral-splitting geometry. The work shows that when morphology and energy levels align, ternaries tune the open-circuit voltage and raise power conversion efficiency in the target spectral region, as demonstrated for the PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 red subcell. Simulations then identify the best two- and three-junction combinations, all incorporating ternaries, and these are realized in proof-of-concept devices made by meniscus-guided blade coating. A reader would care because the side-by-side external-connection design avoids the current-matching and fabrication difficulties of stacked multijunction cells while using scalable methods to reach higher efficiencies.

Core claim

The RAINBOW architecture places subcells side-by-side and connects them externally for spectral splitting, avoiding vertical stack challenges. Among seven binaries and five ternaries tested, the PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 ternary boosts performance as the red subcell when energy levels and morphology align. Device simulations select optimal two- and three-junction sets that include ternaries, and fabricated devices reach 15.9% efficiency for two junctions and 17.3% for three junctions, compared with 12.9% for single-junction cells. Detailed balance analysis indicates the geometry could reach much higher efficiencies once high-performance wide-bandgap materials between 2 and 2.5 eV become ready

What carries the argument

The RAINBOW geometry, a side-by-side spectral splitting design with externally connected subcells, which reduces fabrication complexity and removes current-matching constraints of vertical stacks.

If this is right

Two-junction RAINBOW devices achieve 15.9% efficiency and 16.4% in simulations.
Three-junction RAINBOW devices achieve 17.3% efficiency and 17.7% in simulations.
Ternary blends tune Voc and increase PCE in the intended spectral region when morphology and energy levels align.
Meniscus-guided blade coating produces working two- and three-junction RAINBOW devices at scale.
Detailed balance limits show the geometry can exceed current efficiencies once wide-bandgap materials in the 2-2.5 eV range reach high performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Large-area OPV modules could become simpler to manufacture because the side-by-side layout avoids precise vertical alignment of multiple layers.
Pairing improved wide-gap materials with this geometry might allow overall device efficiencies above 20% without changing the external-connection approach.
Outdoor performance testing under varying illumination spectra would reveal whether the simulated gains persist in real conditions.
Combining RAINBOW subcells with light-management layers such as anti-reflection coatings could produce additional efficiency increases beyond the reported values.

Load-bearing premise

That ternary mixing can tune open-circuit voltage and raise power conversion efficiency in the target spectral window when morphology and energy levels stay well aligned.

What would settle it

Fabricating a three-junction RAINBOW device by blade coating that measures below 15% efficiency under standard test conditions, or finding that the simulated highest-PCE configurations cannot be realized experimentally, would refute the viability claim.

Figures

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

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: a) Chemical structure of the materials used in this study and b) their energy levels; [59–62] c) RAINBOW architecture showing an optical element to divide the incident spectrum laterally over three subcells. 2.1. Binary blends Firstly, the performance and the absorption properties of single-junction binary blend systems are evaluated to identify suitable candidates for each subcell. Devices are fabricated … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: a) EQE of different BHJ across the solar spectrum and b) their corresponding Voc and Jsc values over bandgap distribution. 2.2. Study of Ternaries We first focus on PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F as it is the lowest bandgap blend available, whose FF, Voc and Jsc are clearly lower than expected according to the gap, possibly due to transport limitations. Adding another acceptor with higher gap as a third component may he… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: a) Voc depending on the addition of a third component (A2) to PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F. The inset shows the relative increase of Voc between the ternaries (PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:A2) and the two binaries (left, PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F; right, PTB7-Th:A2); b) EQE of PTB7- Th:COTIC-4F:IEICO-4F; c) EQE of the best devices of every ratio of PTB7-Th:COTIC4F:BTP-eC9; d) trend of EQE at 1000 nm and efficiencies of the best devices f… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simulation results of a 2-junction RAINBOW. a) Determination of the best cutting wavelength based on the maximum achievable RAINBOW efficiency with IoBC (top) and its corresponding RAINBOW Jsc (bottom); b) RAINBOW efficiencies using PTB7-Th:COTIC4F:BTP-eC9 binary and ternary blends as red cell in combination with different binary systems as blue cell. Figure 5b summarizes the results of all RAINBOW combin… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: a) 3-junction RAINBOW simulation of PTQ10:FCC-Cl + PM6:DTY6 + Ternary 1:0.6:0.9. The upper panel shows the EQE of the subcells over the spectrum at the optimal dividing wavelengths. The lower panel shows the RAINBOW PCE depending on 2 dividing wavelengths; b) increase of efficiency with increasing junctions for all possible subcell combinations. The red circle marks the 3-junction combinations that exhibit… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: a) Optimal subcell bandgaps for maximum multijunction efficiency; b) maximum efficiency for each number of junctions. 3. Conclusion In this study, we explored the RAINBOW multijunction architecture with 2 and 3 junctions as a scalable way to improve OPV performance. To enhance the efficiency of the narrow bandgap binary system PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F, used as a red subcell due to its extended infrared absorption,… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Ternary blends give measurable efficiency gains in side-by-side RAINBOW OPVs, reaching 17.3% in three-junction devices, but the work stays modest without better wide-gap materials.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper gets real efficiency improvements in side-by-side multi-junction organic solar cells by using ternary active layers. They go from 12.9% in single-junction to 15.9% in two-junction and 17.3% in three-junction devices, with simulations predicting 16.4% and 17.7%. The devices were made with blade coating, which is a plus for scalability. What the paper does well is show a practical way around the problems of vertical stacking, like current matching and complex fabrication. They first screened binaries across a range of bandgaps, then tried ternaries to fix losses in the extremes. The example with PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 as the red subcell illustrates how ternary mixing can adjust Voc and improve PCE when morphology and energy levels match. Simulations helped pick the best combinations, and the fabricated results are close to the modeled ones. The detailed balance part points to higher potential if wide-gap materials get better. On the soft spots, the gains are solid but not huge, and the abstract gives no error bars or detailed loss analysis, which makes it tougher to assess variability. The selection of ternaries feels a bit post-hoc after testing binaries, though that's common in experimental work. The big upside relies on future materials with 2-2.5 eV gaps, which aren't available now. Methods details aren't in the abstract, but assuming the full paper has them, the experimental part looks grounded. This paper is for researchers in organic photovoltaics looking at multi-junction alternatives or scalable processing. Someone focused on device engineering or spectral management would find the results useful. It has enough new data and addresses a clear problem, so it deserves peer review. I'd recommend sending it to referees rather than desk rejecting.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript explores the RAINBOW side-by-side spectral-splitting architecture for organic photovoltaics as an alternative to vertical stacks. It first characterizes seven binary donor-acceptor blends with bandgaps from 1.98 eV to 1.16 eV, then tests five ternary blends to reduce losses at the spectral extremes. Device simulations are used to select the highest-PCE 2-junction and 3-junction combinations (all incorporating ternaries), which are subsequently fabricated by meniscus-guided blade coating. Measured power-conversion efficiencies rise from 12.9 % (single-junction reference) to 15.9 % (2-junction) and 17.3 % (3-junction), with simulations predicting 16.4 % and 17.7 %, respectively. A detailed-balance projection indicates further gains are possible once high-efficiency wide-gap (2–2.5 eV) materials become available.

Significance. If the reported efficiency gains and simulation-experiment agreement hold, the work supplies concrete experimental evidence that ternary blending can tune open-circuit voltage and fill factor in the target spectral window while the RAINBOW geometry sidesteps current-matching and fabrication difficulties of stacked tandems. The use of scalable blade-coating and the explicit identification of the morphology/energy-level alignment condition for the PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 red subcell are practical strengths. The conditional detailed-balance analysis usefully frames the architecture’s ultimate potential.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and experimental results section] Abstract and §3 (experimental results): the central efficiency claims (12.9 % → 15.9 % / 17.3 %) are presented without error bars, standard deviations, or a quantitative loss analysis (e.g., Jsc, Voc, FF contributions). This weakens the ability to judge whether the observed gains are statistically robust or reproducible across batches.
[Ternary selection and simulation sections] §2.2 (ternary selection) and §4 (simulations): the choice of the five ternaries appears post-hoc after the binary survey; the manuscript does not state an a-priori criterion or screening protocol that would allow readers to assess whether the reported PCE boost for PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 is generalizable or specific to the tested set.

minor comments (2)

[Figures and methods] Figure captions and text should explicitly state the number of devices measured and the statistical method used to obtain the quoted PCE values.
[Detailed-balance analysis] The detailed-balance projection in the final section would benefit from a brief sensitivity analysis showing how the projected efficiency changes with realistic assumptions for wide-gap material performance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and experimental results section] Abstract and §3 (experimental results): the central efficiency claims (12.9 % → 15.9 % / 17.3 %) are presented without error bars, standard deviations, or a quantitative loss analysis (e.g., Jsc, Voc, FF contributions). This weakens the ability to judge whether the observed gains are statistically robust or reproducible across batches.

Authors: We agree that the presentation of the efficiency values would benefit from explicit statistical information and a breakdown of the performance gains. In the revised manuscript we will add standard deviations (from at least five devices per configuration) to all reported PCE, Jsc, Voc and FF values in the abstract, §3 and the associated figures/tables. We will also include a quantitative loss analysis that decomposes the efficiency improvement into contributions from changes in Jsc, Voc and FF relative to the single-junction reference, allowing readers to assess the robustness and reproducibility of the gains. revision: yes
Referee: [Ternary selection and simulation sections] §2.2 (ternary selection) and §4 (simulations): the choice of the five ternaries appears post-hoc after the binary survey; the manuscript does not state an a-priori criterion or screening protocol that would allow readers to assess whether the reported PCE boost for PTB7-Th:COTIC-4F:BTP-eC9 is generalizable or specific to the tested set.

Authors: The ternary combinations were selected after observing that the widest- and narrowest-gap binaries exhibited the largest losses in Voc and FF. We will revise §2.2 to state this selection criterion explicitly: ternaries were formulated to restore Voc and FF in the spectral extremes by blending an intermediate-gap component that maintains compatible morphology and energy-level alignment with the host binary. While the specific donor/acceptor ratios were optimized experimentally for the five tested systems, the underlying rationale (targeting lossy spectral edges identified in the binary survey) is general and can be applied to other material sets. We will also add a short paragraph in §4 clarifying how this criterion guided the device-simulation inputs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript is an experimental study that tests 7 binary and 5 ternary OPV blends, fabricates side-by-side RAINBOW devices by blade coating, and reports measured PCE gains (12.9 % single-junction to 15.9 % two-junction and 17.3 % three-junction). Device simulations are used solely to select promising configurations; the detailed-balance projection is a standard limiting-case estimate conditioned on future wide-gap materials. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked as load-bearing derivations that reduce to their own inputs by construction. The central claims rest on direct empirical measurements rather than any self-referential modeling loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only, so ledger is necessarily incomplete. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the provided text. One standard physics assumption is invoked for the final potential analysis.

axioms (1)

standard math Detailed balance analysis provides an upper bound on achievable efficiency
Invoked to indicate that higher performance is possible if better wide-bandgap materials become available.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1465 out tokens · 73406 ms · 2026-05-11T03:31:09.549343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

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

work page 2025
[2]

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

work page 2026
[3]

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

work page 2024
[4]

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

work page 2025
[5]

C. Li, Y. Cai, P. Hu, T. Liu, L. Zhu, R. Zeng, F. Han, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, J. Lv, Y. Ma, D. Han, M. Zhang, Q. Lin, J. Xu, N. Yu, J. Qiao, J. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Xia, Z. Tang, L. Ye, X. Li, Z. Xu, X. Hao, Q. Peng, F. Liu, L. Guo, H. Huang, Nat. Mater. 2025, 1

work page 2025
[6]

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

work page 2025
[7]

Moser, A

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

work page 2021
[8]

Bernardo, T

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

work page 2021
[9]

Steinberger, Q

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

work page 2024
[10]

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

work page 2014
[11]

Krebs-Moberg, M

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

work page 2021
[12]

Meitzner, U

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

work page 2021
[13]

W. Song, J. Ge, L. Xie, Z. Chen, Q. Ye, D. Sun, J. Shi, X. Tong, X. Zhang, Z. Ge, Nano Energy 2023, 116, 108805. 25

work page 2023
[14]

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

work page 2024
[15]

Tseng, L.-H

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

work page 2025
[16]

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

work page 2019
[17]

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

work page 2021
[18]

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

work page 2024
[19]

Rühle, Solar Energy 2016, 130, 139

S. Rühle, Solar Energy 2016, 130, 139

work page 2016
[20]

Shockley, H

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

work page 1961
[21]

Trupke, M

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

work page 2002
[22]

Asahi, H

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

work page 2017
[23]

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

work page 2022
[24]

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

work page 2017
[25]

De Wolf, E

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

work page 2023
[26]

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

work page 1980
[27]

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

work page 2023
[28]

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

work page 2025
[29]

Lim, N.-G

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

work page 2024
[30]

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

work page 2024
[31]

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

work page 2025
[32]

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

work page 2025
[33]

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

work page 2020
[34]

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

work page 2020
[35]

Zheng, J

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

work page 2022
[36]

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

work page 1996
[37]

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

work page 1997
[38]

Barnett, D

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

work page 2009
[39]

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

work page 2010
[40]

Stefancich, A

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

work page 2012
[41]

M. D. Escarra, S. Darbe, E. C. Warmann, H. A. Atwater, In 2013 IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2013, pp. 1852–1855. 26

work page 2013
[42]

Huang, J

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

work page 2013
[43]

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

work page 2014
[44]

Huang, Q

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

work page 2016
[45]

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

work page 2019
[46]

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

work page 2025
[47]

Casademont-Viñas, M

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

work page 2023
[48]

Gibert-Roca, M

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

work page 2024
[49]

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

work page 2016
[50]

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

work page 2018
[51]

Lee, J.-H

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

work page 2020
[52]

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

work page 2022
[53]

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

work page 2023
[54]

Li, J.-D

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

work page 2018
[55]

Huang, S.-Y

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

work page 2018
[56]

Lee, S.-J

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

work page 2018
[57]

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

work page 2023
[58]

543– 569

Organic Solar Cells, In Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics, Academic Press, 2012, pp. 543– 569

work page 2012
[59]

Bertrandie, J

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

work page 2022
[60]

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

work page 2022
[61]

Baran, R

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

work page 2017
[62]

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

work page 2021
[63]

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

work page 2012
[64]

Casademont-Viñas, D

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

work page 2024
[65]

Shoaee, H

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

work page 2024
[66]

H. Lu, J. Zhang, J. Chen, Q. Liu, X. Gong, S. Feng, X. Xu, W. Ma, Z. Bo, Advanced Materials 2016, 28, 9559. 27

work page 2016
[67]

J. Fu, Q. Yang, P. Huang, S. Chung, K. Cho, Z. Kan, H. Liu, X. Lu, Y. Lang, H. Lai, F. He, P. W. K. Fong, S. Lu, Y. Yang, Z. Xiao, G. Li, Nat Commun 2024, 15, 1830. 1 Supporting Information Exploring the Potential of Ternary Blending for Two and Three -Junction RAINBOW Solar Cells Francesc Xavier Capella-Guardià, Jolanda Simone Müller, Muhammad Ahsan Sae...

work page 2024
[68]

Wojdyr, J Appl Cryst 2010, 43, 1126

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

work page 2010
[69]

Rivnay, R

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

work page 2011