<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJAppS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Applied Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2165-3917</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojapps.2024.145086</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJAppS-133319</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Chemistry&amp;Materials Science</subject><subject> Computer Science&amp;Communications</subject><subject> Engineering</subject><subject> Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Numerical Analysis on the Effect of n-Si on Cu(In, Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Based Thin-Films for High-Performance Solar Cells by 1D-SCAPS
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rasika</surname><given-names>N. Mohottige</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Micheal</surname><given-names>Farndale</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gary</surname><given-names>S. Coombs</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shahnoza</surname><given-names>Saburhhojayeva</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Natural Sciences, Waldorf University, Forest City, IA, USA</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>30</day><month>04</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>1315</fpage><lpage>1329</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>13,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2024</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2024</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>24,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  We report the performances of a chalcopyrite Cu(In, Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2 &lt;/sub&gt;CIGS-based thin-film solar cell with a newly employed high conductive n-Si layer. The data analysis was performed with the help of the 1D-Solar Cell Capacitance Simulator (1D-SCAPS) software program. The new device structure is based on the CIGS layer as the absorber layer, n-Si as the high conductive layer, i-In&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;, and i-ZnO as the buffer and window layers, respectively. The optimum CIGS bandgap was determined first and used to simulate and analyze the cell performance throughout the experiment. This analysis revealed that the absorber layer&amp;#8217;s optimum bandgap value has to be 1.4 eV to achieve maximum efficiency of 22.57%. Subsequently, output solar cell parameters were analyzed as a function of CIGS layer thickness, defect density, and the operating temperature with an optimized n-Si layer. The newly modeled device has a p-CIGS/n-Si/In&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;/Al-ZnO structure. The main objective was to improve the overall cell performance while optimizing the thickness of absorber layers, defect density, bandgap, and operating temperature with the newly employed optimized n-Si layer. The increase of absorber layer thickness from 0.2 - 2 &amp;#181;m showed an upward trend in the cell&amp;#8217;s performance, while the increase of defect density and operating temperature showed a downward trend in solar cell performance. This study illustrates that the proposed cell structure shows higher cell performances and can be fabricated on the lab-scale and industrial levels.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>n-Si</kwd><kwd> p-CIGS</kwd><kwd> 1D-SCAPS</kwd><kwd> Thin-Films</kwd><kwd> In&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Solar cells are photovoltaic (PV) devices, which directly convert light energy into electricity. The development of solar cell applications and other renewable energy resources will be an excellent solution for the future energy crisis. Amongst available solar cells, Si-based polycrystalline devices are still dominating the photovoltaic market due to their high efficiencies and long-term stability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref1">1</xref>] . Other types of solar cells such as thin-film, organic material, inorganic material, and dye-sensitized solar cells are currently under intense research to achieve higher efficiencies and stability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref4">4</xref>] . Many researches have been devoted to improving the thin-film solar cell (second-generation solar cells) performances due to their low-cost fabrication, long-term stability, and excellent power conversion (PCE) efficiencies. Research on thin film is of great interest and with a very active research topic in the photovoltaic community, and the study of the CIGS-based solar cells is a topic under intense research. Recently worldwide research interest in cadmium telluride (CdTe) and chalcopyrite Cu(In, Ga)Se<sub>2</sub> (CIGS) based solar cells has caused considerable interest within the photovoltaic community due to their excellent PCE and cost-effectiveness. Because Cd is toxic to living beings and causes environmental concerns, investigations on CIGS-based solar cells have become more popular over CdTe-based solar cells. CIGS solar cells have shown excellent power conversion efficiencies of over 20% on lab-scale experiments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref6">6</xref>] . In addition to low cost and higher efficiencies, CIGS-based photovoltaic devices offer higher radiation resistance, durability, and lightweight, which is essential in space applications than Si-based solar cells. Therefore, CIGS has become a promising semiconductor material in the thin-film solar cell industry. Even though conventional CIGS solar cells show excellent performances, many research groups are investigating making a new device by replacing the CdS buffer layer, which produces fewer environmental concerns such as In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub>, ZnS, and ZnSnO<sub>4</sub>, etc. Recently we have shown that n-In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub> can be used as an alternative to CdS with a remarkable efficiency of 26%, which offers less health and environmental effects [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref7">7</xref>] . However, further theoretical and experimental investigations are necessary to explore CIGS-based solar cells’ working principles to achieve higher efficiencies and become more popular in the photovoltaic market. Solar cells also encounter efficiency losses due to material properties and device engineering limitations like all other electronic devices. Carrier recombination is the potential drawback observed in all types of solar cells [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>Optimizing the absorber layer’s physical parameters and other engineering developments will help to suppress the carrier recombination. Back-contact recombination becomes more dominant with a thinner absorber layer. Hence, the absorber layer’s thickness and bandgap optimization are crucial parameters for lab-scale experiments and theoretical works to achieve better solar cell performance. In thin-film solar cell studies, p-CIGS absorber material has become more promising, because it possesses a tunable bandgap with a bandgap range of ~1.06 - 1.7 eV. One can find more details about the practical and commercial level fabrication process of CIGS-based solar cells from the available literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref10">10</xref>] . A conventional CIGS-based solar cell consists of Substrate/Mo/p-CIGS/n-CdS/Al-ZnO/metal(Ni) grids. Many lab-scale and theoretical investigations have been conducted and modified in such a way as to reach different innovative ideas to achieve higher efficiencies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref11">11</xref>] . Based on available data, most lab and commercial-based fabrications have achieved efficiencies of more than 12% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref12">12</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>To simulate realistic experimental conditions, this work extensively analyzed impacts of the absorber layer’s bandgap, thickness, and defect density on output solar cell performances viz short circuit current density (J<sub>sc</sub>), open-circuit voltage (V<sub>oc</sub>), fill factor (FF%), power conversion efficiency (PCE) and quantum efficiency(QE%). Finally, the optimized structure was simulated by varying the operating temperature.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Primary Considerations for Device Simulation and Material Parameters</title><p>A deep understanding of electronic device fabrication and its working principle is vital to elevating the devices’ performance and making them available at the industrial level. Implementing new device architecture, devices’ engineering developments and numerical simulations provide a robust platform for that. Experimental time-scale and fabrication costs can significantly be reduced by employing numerical simulations before starting the lab-scale experiments. Hence, a large amount of theoretical research based on numerical simulations is carried out worldwide. The following sections performed a numerical simulation using one dimensional Solar Cell Capacitance Simulator (1D-SCAPS) software package (version 3.3.07) developed at the University of Gent, Belgium. Initially, SCAPS software was designed only for CdTe-based thin films. After implementing several modifications by the developers, SCAPS can now simulate Si, GaAs-based thin-film solar cells, and more details can be found in the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref21">21</xref>] . 1D-SCAPS is a powerful simulation software tool that could solve basic semiconductor equations such as Poisson’s and continuity equations. Also, the SCAPS simulation can produce steady-state band diagrams, which are essential for semiconductor physics. Poisson’s equation mainly describes the relationship between charge density and the electrostatic potential, and continuity equations describe the electrons and holes moving in and out of the material. These equations are given below.</p><p>d d x ( − ε ( x ) d ψ d x ) = q [ p ( x ) − n ( x ) + N d + ( x ) − N A − ( x ) + p t ( x ) − n t ( x ) ] (1)</p><p>d p n d t = G p − p n − p n 0 τ p − p n μ p d ξ d x − μ p ξ d p n d x + D p d 2 p n d x 2 (2)</p><p>d n p d t = G n − n p − n p 0 τ n + n p μ n d ξ d x + μ n ξ d n p d x + D n d 2 n p d x 2 (3)</p><p>where ε is the permittivity, D p and D n are carrier diffusion coefficients for holes and electrons respectively, q is the electronic charge, &#181; is the carrier mobility, the n p (electrons) and p n (holes) are minority carrier concentrations, G is the generation rate, n t and p t are trapped electrons and holes, respectively, N d + and N A − are ionized donors and acceptors, respectively, ψ is the electrostatic potential, and ξ is the electric field.</p><p>In the conventional CIGS cell structure, the depletion region (active region) is made with p-CIGS and the n-CdS, and the window layer is made from Al-ZnO with a bandgap of 3.30 eV. The device should have a p-n junction with a healthy depletion region to reach a better output performance. The formation of a weak depletion region will directly affect the power conversion efficiency. In this device, the n-Si layer was employed between CIGS and the buffer layer to obtain a healthy depletion region in the p-n junction and a higher conductivity in the structure. Therefore, this study proposed a new device structure with substrate/Mo/p-CIGS/n-Si/i-In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub>/Al-ZnO/metal grids, as depicted in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>. Defect density was implemented in the CIGS, n-Si, and i-In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub> layers to keep the device close to an actual device. In this study, CdS-buffer layer has been replaced by i-In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub> because Cd is toxic to living beings and creates environmental concerns. Before the simulation, material parameters should be entered into software as physical input parameters. Additionally, test conditions such as operating temperature, illumination, bias voltage, etc., were set before starting the simulation. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows the optimized and required material parameters of each layer used in this simulation.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>Robust and precise simulation software will play a vital role during new device modeling. Herein, numerical simulation was performed for a new device architecture of CIGS-based solar cell using the 1D-SCAPS simulator. The proposed structure contains a p-CIGS absorber layer, n-Si layer, and In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub> as a buffer layer. In this simulation, first, each layer thickness was optimized using a pre-selected model, and 2 &#181;m, 0.5 &#181;m, 0.05 &#181;m, and 0.1 &#181;m thicknesses were selected for CIGS, n-Si, In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub>, and Al-ZnO layers, respectively. The CIGS layer’s optimum bandgap value was determined by varying bandgap values from 1.1 eV to 1.7 eV before investigating the absorber layer thickness’s impacts. Secondly, the proposed structure was investigated at various absorber layer thicknesses with the simulated optimum bandgap. In this study’s final stage, the optimized cell was then simulated at multiple operating temperatures from 298 K to 400 K and various defect densities from 1.77 &#215; 10<sup>13</sup> to 1.77 &#215; 10<sup>17</sup> cm<sup>−3</sup>. The incident power density was maintained at AM 1.5 (Power = 1000 Wm<sup>−2</sup>).</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> depicts that efficiency increases rapidly from 1.1 eV to 1.4 eV, then remains constant until 1.7eV. Therefore, it is apparent that a thin-film solar cell’s efficiency significantly depends on the selected semiconductor material’s bandgap. This work used 1.4 eV as the CIGS layer’s optimized bandgap throughout the experiment based on the simulation.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Optimized material parameters used in the simulation</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-CIGS</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >n-Si</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >i-In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Al-ZnO</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thickness (&#181;m)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2 - 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bandgap (eV)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Electron affinity (eV)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Relative permittivity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CB (1/cm<sup>3</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2 &#215; 10<sup>18</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8 &#215; 10<sup>19</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8 &#215; 10<sup>18</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2 &#215; 10<sup>18</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >VB (1/cm<sup>3</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8 &#215; 10<sup>19</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.65 &#215; 10<sup>19</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.0 &#215;10<sup>13</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8 &#215; 10<sup>19</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Electron mobility (cm<sup>2</sup>/Vs)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >400</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hole mobility (cm<sup>2</sup>/Vs)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND (1/cm<sup>3</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0 &#215; 10<sup>20</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0 &#215; 10<sup>18</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NA (1/cm<sup>3</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0 &#215; 10<sup>16</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Defects density (1/cm<sup>3</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 &#215; 10<sup>13</sup> - 1 &#215; 10<sup>17</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 &#215;10<sup>14</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 &#215;10<sup>14</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>After optimizing the CIGS absorber layer’s bandgap, thickness has been numerically investigated in the ranges of 0.2 μm to 2 μm while keeping other material parameters of different layers constant. This study’s main objective was to optimize the absorber layer thickness to achieve maximum output performance with minimal cell’s power conversion efficiency (PCE) losses. A heterojunction solar cell is essentially a p-n junction device. Therefore, it is crucial to confirm the formation of the p-n junction in the thin-film structure.</p><p>The energy band diagram (EBD) is the most evident signature of the thin film’s p-n junction building. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> presents the energy band diagram of the CIGS-based cell structure of this study. The energy band diagram shows different recombination regions named A, B, C &amp; D. Regions A &amp; B are assigned to recombination at back contact and bulk recombination. Thus the energy band diagram confirms that by increasing absorber layer thickness, back contact recombination current density significantly reduces and ensures the enhancement of cell output performances. Also, the formation of region C (depletion layer) in EBD confirms that the proposed structure has a healthy, active region essential for higher performance.</p><p>Solar cell output performances, viz V<sub>oc</sub>, J<sub>sc</sub>, FF, and PCE, are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>, and the simulation results are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. The results clearly show that J<sub>sc</sub>, V<sub>oc</sub>, FF, and PCE have increased as the absorber layer’s thickness increases. The maximum efficiency value of 22.57% was achieved at 2 μm. The rapid rise in output parameters, V<sub>oc</sub>, J<sub>sc</sub>, FF &amp; PCE, can be observed in the thickness ranging from 0.2 μm to 0.8 μm, and 0.8 μm to 2 μm will only increase slightly, which means saturation phase has been reached. Thickness optimization of the absorber and the buffer layer is essential for an efficient photovoltaic</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Solar cell performance as a function of the CIGS layer thickness</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >CIGS thickness (&#181;m)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>oc</sub> (V)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >J<sub>sc</sub> (mA/cm<sup>2</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >FF (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >PCE (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5763</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.96</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5974</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6037</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6086</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6129</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6168</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6202</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6228</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6252</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.57</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>device. Recently we have shown that the In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub> buffer layer is a promising and robust alternative for CdS. Also, buffer layer thickness variation from 20 nm to 100 nm had a minimum effect on the cell’s performance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133319-ref22">22</xref>] . Thus the extensive investigation of how In<sub>2</sub>S<sub>3</sub> buffer layer thickness impacts the output performance has been excluded from this study.</p><p>It is evident that CIGS layer thickness is directly proportional to the number of absorbed photons, contributing to generating more electron-hole pairs (e-h) before recombination with the back contact and, consequently, enhancing the cell’s overall efficiency. According to <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>, back contact recombination is drastically reduced, while in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>, bulk recombination current density increases as the absorber layer’s thickness increases.</p><p>However, obtaining higher CIGS absorber layer thickness is still challenging because of the high fabrication cost during mass production due to the high indium content (In) and gallium (Ga). Hence, it was evident from the results that the optimum absorber layer thickness should be around 2 μm to minimize the material consumption without any significant impact on solar cell efficiency. Also, cells with thinner absorber layers will negatively affect the cell’s performance by increasing back-contact recombination. Because the back contact is located near the depletion region of the p-n junction, this will cause higher recombination with the back contact and result in a downward trend in output performance. Therefore, more experimental research needs to be performed to determine the CIGS absorber layer’s optimum thickness to obtain higher efficiencies. Output performances of photovoltaic devices are highly dependent on the spectrum of the incident light. Hence, the proposed device was studied within the spectral range of 300 nm (4.13 eV) - 1200 nm (1.03 eV). The spectral response of the device is measured in terms of quantum efficiency (QE%). QE (λ) of a photoactive material is the number of carriers measured at the output detector per number of incident photons per unit time. It estimates the device’s ability to convert a photon flux to a photogenerated electric current and can be expressed by Equation (4).</p><p>QE ( λ ) = J p h q ϕ (4)</p><p>where J p h is the photogenerated current density, q is the electronic charge, and ϕ is the number of incident photons.</p><p>The thickness of the absorber layer affected the QE% of the cell, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref> shows the variation of QE% under AM 1.5 as a function of CIGS absorber layer thickness. As expected, by increasing CIGS layer thickness, many photons are absorbed towards the higher thickness range, resulting in more photogenerated carriers collected before recombination and directly enhancing the QE%. There are three distinct regions in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>; above 600 nm, 440 nm to 520 nm, and below 400 nm. Above 600 nm, one can observe that QE% has progressively increased from 0.2 - 2 μm due to the spectrum’s high absorption by thicker layers, thus lowering the recombination, ensuring the maximum QE%. Nevertheless, below 400 nm, one can observe the blue response mainly due to front surface recombination. The change in QE% from 440 nm to 520 nm is apparent in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref> due to the buffer layer’s influence.</p><p>However, the defect density of polycrystalline material significantly affected the performance of the cell. It is well known that defects in the absorber layer influence the device output solar cell parameters. Hence, to get a deep understanding of defect density in the absorber layer, PCE and FF parameters were simulated. Meanwhile, the defect density was changed from 1.77 &#215; 10<sup>13</sup> to 1.77 &#215; 10<sup>17</sup> cm<sup>−3</sup>. The effects of defect density on PCE &amp; FF% are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>. As the defect density increases, PCE decreases from 22.17% to 10.57%, and FF% decreases from 84.30 to 69.35 which means defects at the absorber layer in the cell are unfavorable for the efficiency fill factor. This observation can be attributed to higher defect density leading to a higher recombination rate, which reduces the cell’s efficiency.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Impact of CIGS Layer Thickness on V<sub>oc</sub>, J<sub>sc</sub>, FF, PCE, and QE%</title><p>Many numerical simulation studies have been conducted on conventional thin-film</p><p>CIGS-based solar cells. Hence, this study determined the cell’s output performance with the n-Si layer for the first time. As mentioned in the previous section, the impact of the thickness variation was studied only for the absorber layer, and thicknesses of other layers were kept at standard optimized values. CIGS absorber is the most crucial layer in the thin-film structure. It is a chalcopyrite semiconductor material with a bandgap in the range of 1.06 eV - 1.7 eV. Therefore, before investigating the thickness, defect density, and temperature effect on the cell’s performance, it is vital to research the absorber layer’s optimum bandgap, which corresponds to the maximum efficiency. At first, the CIGS layer’s optimum bandgap value was simulated and determined in the range of minimum and maximum bandgap values of 1.1 to 1.7 eV, respectively.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Impact of Operating Temperature on V<sub>oc</sub>, J<sub>sc</sub>, FF, PCE, and QE%</title><p>All kinds of solar cells are highly responsive to operating temperature, and the temperature variations directly affect the cell’s performance. Hence, the operating temperature becomes a vital physical parameter to investigate when modeling and using lab-scale fabrications. Solar cells should work with a minimum performance loss within the considerable temperature range. CIGS-based solar cells are specially designed for outdoor applications and space applications due to their stability in the temperature range of 59˚F to 122˚F. The open-circuit voltage (V<sub>oc</sub>), short circuit current density (J<sub>sc</sub>), fill factor (FF), QE%, and power conversion efficiency (η%) are temperature-dependent parameters. V<sub>oc</sub> is the most vulnerable output solar cell parameter affected by operating temperature. As depicted in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>, V<sub>oc</sub> decreases linearly as the temperature increases. Saturation current density (J<sub>0</sub>) controls the V<sub>oc</sub>, and J<sub>0</sub> is highly sensitive to operating temperature. The following equation shows the relationship between J<sub>0</sub> and V<sub>oc</sub>.</p><p>V o c = k T q ln ( J s c J 0 + 1 ) (5)</p><p>where k = the Boltzmann constant and q = the electronic charge.</p><p>All semiconductor devices are susceptible to temperature. An increase in temperature reduces the semiconductor material’s bandgap, negatively impacting most of the semiconductor devices’ performances. This is because high-energy electrons in the conduction band lower the binding energy and reduce bandgap energy at higher temperatures. This leads to increasing J<sub>sc</sub> because more photons</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Solar cell performance at various temperatures</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Temperature (K)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>oc</sub> (V)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >J<sub>sc</sub> (mA/cm<sup>2</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >FF (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >PCE (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >298</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6288</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >310</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6066</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >320</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5884</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >330</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5704</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >340</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5528</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >350</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5355</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >360</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5187</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >370</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.84</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >380</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4855</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >390</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4694</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >400</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4537</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.65</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>are involved in creating more electron-hole pairs (e-h). But at high temperatures, FF and PCE have shown a downward trend. As expected from Equation (4), <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>0 further proves the downward trend in QE% as the operating temperature increases. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the operating temperature dependence values for J<sub>sc</sub>, V<sub>oc</sub>, FF%, and PCE.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In summary, this novel study shows that n-Si is an excellent candidate to build a pn junction with a healthy depletion layer. Furthermore, it was found out that the CIGS layer’s optimum bandgap energy was 1.4 eV and the optimized thickness was 2 &#181;m. Thickness optimization of the absorber layer is vital to reduce material consumption and consequently relieve the fabrication cost. Additionally, at higher operating temperatures (above 310 K) and higher defect densities (above 1.77 &#215; 10<sup>13</sup>) in the absorber layer, the optimized cell shows a downward trend in power conversion efficiency; however, further lab-scale experiments are needed to implement the outcome of this simulation work.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The author thanks the University of Gent in Belgium for providing the SCAPS 1D simulation software.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Mohottige, R.N., Farndale, M., Coombs, G.S. and Saburhhojayeva, S. (2024) Numerical Analysis on the Effect of n-Si on Cu(In, Ga)Se<sub>2</sub> Based Thin-Films for High-Performance Solar Cells by 1D-SCAPS. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 14, 1315-1329. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2024.145086</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.133319-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wolden, C.A., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2011) Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Present Status, Future Prospects, and Research Needs. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Vacuum Science &amp; Technology A&lt;/i&gt;, 29, Article ID: 030801. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1116/1.3569757</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chopra, K.L., Paulson, P.D. and Dutta, V. (2004) Thin-Film Solar Cells: An Overview. &lt;i&gt;Progress in Photovoltaics&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;i&gt; Research and Applications&lt;/i&gt;, 12, 69-92. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.541</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gr&amp;#228;tzel, M. (2001) Photoelectrochemical Cells. &lt;i&gt;Nature&lt;/i&gt;, 414, 338-344. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1038/35104607</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bernede, J.C. (2008) Organic Photovoltaic Cells: History, Principle, and Techniques. &lt;i&gt;Journal of the Chilean Chemical Society&lt;/i&gt;, 53, 1549-1564. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-97072008000300001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Green, M.A., Emery, K., Hishikawa, Y., Warta, W. and Dunlop, E.D. (2013) Solar Cell Efficiency Tables (Version 41). &lt;i&gt;Progress in Photovoltaics&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;i&gt; Research and Appl&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;i&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;cations&lt;/i&gt;, 21, 1-11. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2352</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jackson, P., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2011) New World Record Efficiency for Cu(In,Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Thin-Film Solar Cells beyond 20%. &lt;i&gt;Progress in Photovoltaics&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;i&gt; Research and Applications&lt;/i&gt;, 19, 894-897. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.1078</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shockley, W. (1961) Problems Related to P-N Junctions in Silicon. &lt;i&gt;Solid&lt;/i&gt;-&lt;i&gt;State Ele&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;tron&lt;/i&gt;, 2, 35-60. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1101(61)90054-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pudov, A., Sites, J. and Nakada, T. (2002) Performance and Loss Analyses of High-Efficiency Chemical Bath Deposition (CBD)-ZnS/Cu(In&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sub&gt;&amp;#8722;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sub&gt;X&lt;/sub&gt;Ga&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Thin-Film Solar Cells. &lt;i&gt;Japanese Journal of Applied Physics&lt;/i&gt;, 41, L672. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.41.L672</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kosyachenko, L.A., Mathew, X., Paulson, P.D., Lytvynenko, V.Y. and Maslyanchuk, O.L. (2014) Optical and Recombination Losses in Thin-Film Cu(In,Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Solar Cells. &lt;i&gt;Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells&lt;/i&gt;, 130, 291-302. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2014.07.019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Micheal, P., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2017) Advances in Cost-Efficient Thin-Film Photovoltaics Based on Cu(In,Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. &lt;i&gt;Engineering&lt;/i&gt;, 3, 445-451. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2017.04.015</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vermang, B., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2013) Development of Rear Surface Passivated Cu(In,Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Thin Film Solar Cells with Nano-Sized Local Rear Point Contacts. &lt;i&gt;Solar Energy Mat&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;rials&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt; and Solar Cells&lt;/i&gt;, 117, 505-511. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2013.07.025</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dharmadasa, I.M. (2009) Fermi Level Pinning and Effects on Cu(In,Ga)Se&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-Based Thin-Film Solar Cells. &lt;i&gt;Semiconductor Science and Technology&lt;/i&gt;, 24, Article ID: 055016. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/24/5/055016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vaynzo, Y., Bakulin, A.A., G&amp;#233;linas, S., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2012) Direct Observation of Photoinduced Bound Charge-Pair States at an Organic-Inorganic Semiconductor Interface. &lt;i&gt;Physical Review Letters&lt;/i&gt;, 108, Article ID: 246605. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.246605</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, S.B., Wei, S.H. and Zunger, A. (1997) Stabilization of Ternary Compounds via Ordered Arrays of Defect Pairs. &lt;i&gt;Physical Review Letters&lt;/i&gt;, 78, 4059-4062. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4059</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, S.B., Wei, S.H. and Zunger, A. (1998) Defect Physics of the CuInSe&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Chalcopyrite Semiconductor. &lt;i&gt;Physical Review B&lt;/i&gt;, 57, 9642-9656. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.57.9642</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sugiyama, M., Nakai, R., Nakanishi, H., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2003) Interface Fermi Level Pinning in a Cu/P-CuGaS&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; Schottky Diode. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids&lt;/i&gt;, 64, 1787-1790. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3697(03)00144-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dharmadasa, I.M., Bunning, J.D., Samantilleke, A.P., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2005) Effects of Multi-Defects Metal/Semiconductor Interfaces on Electrical Properties and Their Influence on Stability and Life Time of Thin Film Solar Cells. &lt;i&gt;Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells&lt;/i&gt;, 86, 373-384. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2004.08.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Heriche, H., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2017) New Ultra-Thin CIGS Structure Solar Cells Using SCAPS Simulation Program. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Hydrogen Energy&lt;/i&gt;, 42, 9524-9532.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mostefaoui, M., Mazan, H., Khelifi, S., Bouraiou, A. and Dabou, R. (2015) Simulation of High Efficiency CIGS Solar Cells with SCAPS-1D Software. &lt;i&gt;Energy Procedia&lt;/i&gt;, 74, 736-744. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.809</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Burgelman, M., Nollet, P. and Degrave, S. (2000) Modelling Polycrystalline Semiconductor Solar Cells. &lt;i&gt;Thin Solid Films&lt;/i&gt;, 361-362, 527-532. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(99)00825-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Burgelman, M. and Marlein, J. (2008) Analysis of Graded Bandgap Solar Cells with SCAPS. &lt;i&gt;Proceedin&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;gs of the &lt;/i&gt;23&lt;i&gt;rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference&lt;/i&gt;, Valencia, 1-5 September 2008, 2151-2155.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133319-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mohottige, R.N. and Vithanage, S.P.K. (2021) Numerical Simulation of a New Device Architecture for CIGS-Based Thin-Film Solar Cells Using 1D-SCAPS Simulator. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Photochemistry and&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;Photobiology A&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;i&gt; Chemistry&lt;/i&gt;, 407, Article ID: 113079. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2020.113079</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>