4.6 Article

The synthesis and characterization of lead sulfide with cube-like structure as a counter electrode in the presence of urea using a hydrothermal method

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 39, 期 9, 页码 7379-7388

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5nj01308a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2011-0014437]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2011-0014437] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-performance PbS particles with cube-like structure were deposited onto fluorine-doped tin oxide glass substrates using a hydrothermal method. The PbS particles were used as an efficient counter electrode (CE) for polysulfide redox reactions in CdS/CdSe quantum dot-sensitized solar cells (QDSSCs). The deposition time and urea concentration were optimized to prepare the PbS CEs. The morphology becomes smoother and the surface roughness increases with the 0.3 M urea CE, which was confirmed by field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Under full sunlight illumination, QDSSCs with the optimized 0.3 M urea CE achieved an efficiency of 3.83% (V-oc = 0.55 V, J(sc) = 13.17 mA cm(-2), and FF = 0.52). This value is higher than those for the 0 M urea cell (eta = 2.47%, J(sc) = 10.60 mA cm(-2)) and Pt-based cell (eta = 1.32%, J(sc) = 5.85 mA cm(-2)). Characterization by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and Tafel polarization indicated that the PbS cube-like CEs have lower charge transfer resistance at the CE/electrolyte interface (R-CE) and superior electrochemical catalytic ability. However, R-CE increased with increasing urea concentration (urea 40.3 M), and therefore, the fill factor decreased for the PbS CEs. The influence of different urea concentrations is discussed in detail.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据