Issue

Vol. 30 No. 9 (2018): Vol 30 Issue 9

Copyright (c) 2018 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Effect of Different Organic Dyes and their Impregnation Periods on Photovoltaic Performance of ZnO Based Dye Sensitized Solar Cells

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2018.21387
Bulkesh Siwach
Laser Laboratory, Department of Physics, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125 001, India
Devendra Mohan
Laser Laboratory, Department of Physics, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125 001, India
Monika Barala
Laser Laboratory, Department of Physics, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar-125 001, India
Amarjeet
Department of Chemistry, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa-125 055, India

Corresponding Author(s) : Bulkesh Siwach

bulkesh.siwach@gmail.com

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 30 No. 9 (2018): Vol 30 Issue 9

Abstract

Light absorption in dye sensitized solar cells (DSSCs) depends significantly on the type of sensitizer and its impregnation period. Since dye plays a vital role to broaden the light absorbance of semiconductor photoanode towards the visible region of spectra. The present study reports the effect of two types of organic dyes namely N719 and N749 (black dye) as well as their impregnation periods of 12 h and 24 h, respectively, on the photovoltaic performance of zinc oxide based DSSCs. Zinc oxide photoanode films were deposited on indium tin oxide substrates by doctor blade technique. The DSSC impregnated with N719 dye for the period of 24 h exhibited the highest value of photon conversion efficiency. This happened as the photoanode film impregnated with N719 dye for 24 h exhibited the highest optical absorption in the UV region as well as in visible region of spectra. The solar cell impregnated with N719 dye for the period of 24 h performed with the highest short-circuit density (JSC) of 9.38 mA/cm2, fill factor (FF) of 0.50, open circuit voltage (VOC) of 0.71 V and conversion efficiency (η) of 3.32 %.

Keywords

ZnO Sensitizer Optical absorption Impregnation period Dye sensitized solar cells
Siwach, B., Mohan, D., Barala, M., & Amarjeet, . (2018). Effect of Different Organic Dyes and their Impregnation Periods on Photovoltaic Performance of ZnO Based Dye Sensitized Solar Cells. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 30(9), 2013–2016. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2018.21387
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. S. Licht, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 38, 305 (1995); https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-0248(94)00229-0.
  2. L.Y. Zhang, S.J. Zou and X.H. Sun, RSC Adv., 8, 6212 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA12229B.
  3. M. Grätzel, Nature, 414, 338 (2001); https://doi.org/10.1038/35104607.
  4. C. Longo and M.A. De Paoli, J. Braz. Chem. Soc., 14, 889 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-50532003000600005.
  5. B. O’Regan and M. Grätzel, Nature, 353, 737 (1991); https://doi.org/10.1038/353737a0.
  6. M. Ye, X. Wen, M. Wang, J. Iocozzia, N. Zhang, C. Lin and Z. Lin, Mater. Today, 18, 155 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2014.09.001.
  7. S. Sharma, Bulkesh Siwach, S.K. Ghoshal and D. Mohan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 70, 529 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.136.
  8. G.S. Selopal, H.P. Wu, J. Lu, Y.C. Chang, M. Wang, A. Vomiero, I. Concina and E.W.G. Diau, Sci. Rep., 6, 18756 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18756.
  9. V. Sugathan, E. John and K. Sudhakar, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 52, 54 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.076.
  10. B. Siwach, D. Mohan and D. Jyoti, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron., 28, 11500 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-017-6946-y.
  11. T.P. Chou, Q. Zhang and G. Cao, J. Phys. Chem. C, 111, 18804 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1021/jp076724f.
  12. A.K. Chandiran, M. Abdi-Jalebi, M.K. Nazeeruddin and M. Grätzel, ACS Nano, 8, 2261 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1021/nn405535j.
  13. R. Vittal and K.C. Ho, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 70, 920 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.273.
  14. M.Y.A. Rahman, A.A. Umar, R. Taslim and M.M. Salleh, Electrochim. Acta, 88, 639 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.10.146.
  15. M. Singh, R. Kurchania, R.J. Ball and G.D. Sharma, Indian J. Pure Appl. Phys., 54, 656 (2016).
  16. F.M. Rajab, J. Nanomater., Article ID 3703167 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3703167.
  17. N.A. Ludin, A.M. Al-Alwani Mahmoud, A.B. Mohamad, A.A.H. Kadhum, K. Sopian and N.S.A. Karim, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 31, 386 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.001.
  18. C. Sreekala, I. Jinchu, K. Sreelatha, Y. Janu, N. Prasad, M. Kumar, A.K. Sadh and M. Roy, IEEE J. Photovolt., 2, 312 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2012.2185782.
  19. B. Siwach, S. Sharma and D. Mohan, J. Integr. Sci. Technol., 5, 1 (2017).
  20. S.G. Yan, L.A. Lyon, B.I. Lemon, J.S. Preiskorn and J.T. Hupp, J. Chem. Educ., 74, 657 (1997); https://doi.org/10.1021/ed074p657.
  21. X. Dong, Y. Cao, J. Wang, M.B. Chan-Park, L. Wang, W. Huang and P. Chen, RSC Adv., 2, 4364 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ra01295b.
  22. Q. Zhang, C.S. Dandeneau, X. Zhou and G. Cao, Adv. Mater., 21, 4087 (2009); https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200803827.
  23. M. Hocevar, U. O. Krasovec, M. Berginc and Marko Topic, Acta Chim. Slov., 57, 405 (2010)
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0