Paper detail

The Validity Window of Space-Charge-Limited Current Measurements of Metal Halide Perovskite Devices

Space-charge-limited current (SCLC) measurements are used to estimate charge carrier mobilities and electronic trap densities of semiconductors by analysing the current density-voltage (JV) relationship for unipolar devices predicted by the Mott-Gurney (MG) law. However, the interpretation of SCLC measurements for metal-halide perovskites is problematic due to mobile ionic defects which redistribute to screen electrostatic fields in devices during measurements. To overcome this, an SCLC measurement protocol was recently suggested that minimises ionic charge redistribution by probing the current during millisecond voltage pulses superimposed on a background bias. Here, we use drift-diffusion simulations with mobile ions to assess the validity of the MG law for analysing both the standard and new protocol JV measurements. We simulated idealised perovskite devices with differing mobile ion densities and compared them with simulations and measurements of devices with typical contact materials. We found the validity region for the MG law is limited to perovskites with mobile ion densities lower than the device's equilibrium charge carrier density (<10^17 cm-3 for 400 nm thick methylammonium lead iodide films) and contacts with injection/extraction barriers <=0.1 eV. The latter limitation can be partially overcome by increasing the device thickness, whereas the former limitation cannot. This restricts the range of perovskite layer compositions and viable contact materials that can be reliably analysed with the MG law. Approaches such as estimating trap densities from the apparent voltage onset to trap-free SCLC regime should also be critically reviewed since they rely on the same potentially invalid assumptions as the MG law. Our results demonstrate that extracting meaningful and accurate values for metal halide perovskite material properties from SCLC maybe challenging, or often not possible.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.