Published Online: 15 December 2014
Accepted: November 2014
Journal of Applied Physics 116, 233502 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4903976
more...View Affiliations
Currently, Cu-containing chalcopyrite-based solar cells provide the highest conversion efficiencies among all thin-film photovoltaic (PV) technologies. They have reached efficiency values above 20%, the same performance level as multi-crystalline silicon-wafer technology that dominates the commercial PV market. Chalcopyrite thin-film heterostructures consist of a layer stack with a variety of interfaces between different materials. It is the chalcopyrite/buffer region (forming the p-n junction), which is of crucial importance and therefore frequently investigated using surface and interface science tools, such as photoelectron spectroscopy and scanning probe microscopy. To ensure comparability and validity of the results, a general preparation guide for “realistic” surfaces of polycrystalline chalcopyrite thin films is highly desirable. We present results on wet-chemical cleaning procedures of polycrystalline Cu(In1-xGax)Se2 thin films with an average x = [Ga]/([In] + [Ga]) = 0.29, which were exposed to ambient conditions for different times. The hence natively oxidized sample surfaces were etched in KCN- or NH3-based aqueous solutions. By x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, we find that the KCN treatment results in a chemical surface structure which is – apart from a slight change in surface composition – identical to a pristine as-received sample surface. Additionally, we discover a different oxidation behavior of In and Ga, in agreement with thermodynamic reference data, and we find indications for the segregation and removal of copper selenide surface phases from the polycrystalline material.
  1. 1. ZSW press release (22 September 2014), http://www.zsw-bw.de/uploads/media/pr12-2014-ZSW-WorldrecordCIGS.pdf. Google Scholar
  2. 2. D. Schmid, M. Ruckh, and H.-W. Schock, Appl. Surf. Sci. 103, 409 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-4332(96)00099-2, Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  3. 3. Y. Hashimoto, N. Kohara, T. Negami, M. Nishitani, and T. Wada, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 1 35, 4760 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.35.4760, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  4. 4. H. Iwakuro, C. Tatsuyama, and S. Ichimura, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 1 21, 94 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.21.94, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  5. 5. C. Heske, D. Eich, R. Fink, E. Umbach, T. van Buuren, C. Bostedt, S. Kakar, L. J. Terminello, M. M. Grush, T. A. Callcott, F. J. Himpsel, D. L. Ederer, R. C. C. Perera, W. Riedl, and F. Karg, Surf. Interface Anal. 30, 459 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9918(200008)30:1<459::AID-SIA757>3.0.CO;2-L, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  6. 6. R. Wuerz, A. Meeder, D. Fuertes Marrón, and T. Schedel-Niedrig, Phys. Rev. B 70, 205321 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.205321, , Google ScholarCrossref
  7. 7. D. Cahen, P. J. Ireland, L. L. Kazmerski, and F. A. Thiel, J. Appl. Phys. 57, 4761 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.335341, , Google ScholarScitation, CAS
  8. 8. M. Bär, I. Repins, M. Contreras, L. Weinhardt, R. Noufi, and C. Heske, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 052106 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3194153, , Google ScholarScitation
  9. 9. M. Bär, J. Klaer, L. Weinhardt, R. G. Wilks, S. Krause, M. Blum, W. Yang, C. Heske, and H.-W. Schock, Adv. Energy Mater. 3, 777 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201200946, , Google ScholarCrossref
  10. 10. S. Sadewasser, T. Glatzel, S. Schuler, S. Nishiwaki, R. Kaigawa, and M. Lux-Steiner, Thin Solid Films 431–432, 257 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(03)00267-0, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  11. 11. C.-S. Jiang, F. Hasoon, H. Moutinho, H. Al-Thani, M. Romero, and M. Al-Jassim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 127 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1534417, , Google ScholarScitation, CAS
  12. 12. M. J. Romero, C.-S. Jiang, R. Noufi, and M. Al-Jassim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 172106 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2119422, , Google ScholarScitation
  13. 13. S. Sadewasser, Phys. Status Solidi A 203, 2571 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.200669573, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  14. 14. H. Mönig, Y. Smith, R. Caballero, C. A. Kaufmann, I. Lauermann, M. C. Lux-Steiner, and S. Sadewasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 116802 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.116802, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  15. 15. L. L. Kazmerski, O. Jamjoum, P. J. Ireland, S. K. Deb, R. A. Mickelsen, and W. Chen, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 19, 467 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1116/1.571040, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  16. 16. L. C. Olsen, F. W. Addis, L. Huang, W. N. Shafarman, P. Eschbach, and G. J. Exarhos, in Conference Record of the 28th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Piscataway, NJ (IEEE, 2000), p. 458. , Google Scholar
  17. 17. C. A. Kaufmann, A. Neisser, R. Klenk, and R. Scheer, Thin Solid Films 480–481, 515 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2004.11.067, Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  18. 18. C. A. Kaufmann, R. Caballero, T. Unold, R. Hesse, R. Klenk, S. Schorr, M. Nichterwitz, and H.-W. Schock, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 93, 859 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2008.10.009, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  19. 19. M. P. Seah, Surf. Interface Anal. 14, 488 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.740140813, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  20. 20. A. Kylner, J. Electrochem. Soc. 146, 1816 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1391849, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  21. 21. G. Schön, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 2, 75 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1016/0368-2048(73)80049-0, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  22. 22. P. A. Bertrand, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 18, 28 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1116/1.570694, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  23. 23. C. Wagner and P. Biloen, Surf. Sci. 35, 82 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-6028(73)90205-7, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  24. 24. M. Ruckh, D. Schmid, M. Kaiser, R. Schäffler, T. Walter, and H.-W. Schock, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 41–42, 335 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-0248(95)00105-0, , Google ScholarCrossref
  25. 25. D. W. Niles, K. Ramanathan, F. Hasoon, R. Noufi, B. J. Tielsch, and J. E. Fulghum, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 15, 3044 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1116/1.580902, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  26. 26. C. Heske, G. Richter, Z. Chen, R. Fink, E. Umbach, W. Riedl, and F. Karg, J. Appl. Phys. 82, 2411 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.366096, , Google ScholarScitation, CAS
  27. 27. C. D. Wagner, L. H. Gale, and R. H. Raymond, Anal. Chem. 51, 466 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1021/ac50040a005, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  28. 28. C. D. Wagner, Discuss. Faraday Soc. 60, 291 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1039/dc9756000291, , Google ScholarCrossref
  29. 29.Note that while selenium oxides are soluble in water and hence should be removed by both, the aqueous NH3 as well as the aqueous KCN solution, copper selenides are only soluble in a KCN solution.
  30. 30. J. H. Scofield, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 8, 129 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1016/0368-2048(76)80015-1, Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  31. 31. QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M software (http://www.quases.com) applying the TPP2M algorithm described in S. Tanuma, C. J. Powell, and D. R. Penn, Surf. Interface Anal. 21, 165 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.740210302, , Google ScholarCrossref
  32. 32. N. S. McIntyre and M. G. Cook, Anal. Chem. 47, 2208 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60363a034, , Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  33. 33.As the kinetic energy here considered photoelectrons' changes from ≈369 eV for Ga 2p3/2, over ≈ 555 eV for Cu 2p3/2 and ≈1035 eV for In 3d3/2 to ≈1432 eV for Se 3d5/2, the inelastic mean free path (IMFP) in a stoichiometric chalcopyrite absorber probed with Al Kα excitation increases: IMFP (Ga 2p3/2) ≈ 1.2 nm < IMFP (Cu 2p3/2) ≈1.6 nm < IMFP (In 3d3/2) ≈ 2.6 nm < IMFP (Se 3d5/2) ≈3.4 nm (IMFPs calculated according to Ref. 3131. QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M software (http://www.quases.com) applying the TPP2M algorithm described in S. Tanuma, C. J. Powell, and D. R. Penn, Surf. Interface Anal. 21, 165 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.740210302). In consequence, the information depth of the Ga 2p3/2, Cu 2p3/2, In 3d3/2, and Se 3d5/2 core levels is different and thus might influence the derived oxidation prevalence. However, as the prevalence of oxides formed on an air-exposed CuIn0.71Ga0.29Se2 surface was derived to be in the order of Ga2O3, In2O3, Se-Ox, and Cu2O/CuO, the impact of the information depth can, however, not be dominant.
  34. 34. A. F. Holleman and E. Wiberg, in Lehrbuch der anorganischen Chemie, edited by E. Wiberg ( Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1971). Google Scholar
  35. 35. O. Knacke and O. Kubaschewski, in Thermochemical Properties of Inorganic Substances, edited by K. Hesselmann ( Springer, Heidelberg, 1991). Google Scholar
  36. 36.By normalization of the intensities of the photoelectron spectra, it is possible to gain information about the surface composition. Assuming a homogeneous distribution of the element concentration, the normalized intensity can be derived from
    IntnormX=Intdet.XλCIGSe(Ekin)dσXΩ(hν)T(Ekin)Z,
    where IntnormX is the normalized intensity of a spectral line X, IntdetX the intensity of the same line measured by the detector, λCIGSe(Ekin) the inelastic mean free path for photoelectrons in CuIn0.71Ga0.29Se2 with energy Ekin,3131. QUASES-IMFP-TPP2M software (http://www.quases.com) applying the TPP2M algorithm described in S. Tanuma, C. J. Powell, and D. R. Penn, Surf. Interface Anal. 21, 165 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.740210302 dσXΩ(hν) the partial photoionization cross section of spectral line X with excitation energy hν,3030. J. H. Scofield, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 8, 129 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1016/0368-2048(76)80015-1 T(Ekin) the transmission function of the analyzer for electrons with energy Ekin, and Z the number of scans. The transmission function was determined according to the survey spectra approach by recording a gold spectrum and adjusting it with a reference spectrum [M. P. Seah and G. C. Smith, Surf. Interface Anal. 15, 751 (1990); G. C. Smith and M. P. Seah, ibid. 16, 144 (1990)].
  37. 37. J. R. Tuttle, D. S. Albin, and R. Noufi, Sol. Cells 30, 21 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-6787(91)90034-M, Google ScholarCrossref, CAS
  38. 38. D. Schmid, M. Ruckh, F. Grunwald, and H.-W. Schock, J. Appl. Phys. 73, 2902 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.353020, , Google ScholarScitation, ISI, CAS
  39. 39. D. Liao and A. Rockett, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 2829 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1570516, , Google ScholarScitation, CAS
  40. 40. H. Mönig, Ch.-H. Fischer, R. Caballero, Ch. A. Kaufmann, N. Allsop, M. Gorgoi, R. Klenk, H.-W. Schock, S. Lehmann, M. C. Lux-Steiner, and I. Lauermann, Acta Mater. 57, 3645 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2009.04.029, , Google ScholarCrossref
  41. 41. X. Song, R. Caballero, R. Félix, D. Gerlach, C. A. Kaufmann, H.-W. Schock, R. G. Wilks, and M. Bär, J. Appl. Phys. 111, 034903 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3679604, , Google ScholarScitation
  42. © 2014 AIP Publishing LLC.