Review

www.advenergymat.de

Solar Energy in Space Applications: Review and Technology

Perspectives
Rosaria Verduci, Valentino Romano, Giuseppe Brunetti, Narges Yaghoobi Nia,
Aldo Di Carlo,* Giovanna D’Angelo,* and Caterina Ciminelli*

1. Introduction
Solar cells (SCs) are the most ubiquitous and reliable energy generation
systems for aerospace applications. Nowadays, III–V multijunction solar cells Since 1957, when the Soviet Union devel-
(MJSCs) represent the standard commercial technology for powering space- oped and placed into Earth’s orbit the
world’s first artificial satellite (Sputnik 1),
craft, thanks to their high-power conversion efficiency and certified reliability/
several milestones have been achieved
stability while operating in orbit. Nevertheless, spacecraft companies are for space exploration. Nowadays, thou-
still using cheaper Si-based SCs to amortize the launching costs of satellites. sands of artificial satellites are in orbit
Moreover, in recent years, new SCs technologies based on Cu(In,Ga)Se2 to photograph and analyze the Sun, the
(CIGS) and perovskite solar cells (PSCs) have emerged as promising candi- Moon, the Earth, the other planets of our
Solar System, asteroids, galaxies, and
dates for aerospace power systems, because of their appealing properties
exoplanets. According to the Union of
such as lightweightness, flexibility, cost-effective manufacturing, and excep- Concerned Scientists, currently there are
tional radiation resistance. In this review the current advancements and more than 6000 satellites orbiting Earth
future challenges of SCs for aerospace applications are critically discussed. of which 3372 are used for different pur-
In particular, for each type of SC, a description of the device’s architecture, poses:[1] communication systems (internet,
a summary of its performance, and a quantitative assessment of the radia- cell phones, radio, TV), global positioning
system (location-based services and navi-
tion resistance are presented. Finally, considering the high potential that
gation), Earth observation, sensing and
2D-materials (such as graphene, transition metal dichalcogenides, and monitoring (weather tracking, disaster
transition metal carbides, nitrides, and carbonitrides) have in improving both prediction).
performance and stability of SCs, a brief overview of some important results One of the main critical components
concerning the influence of radiation on both 2D materials-based devices and of spacecrafts either in Earth orbit or for
destinations far away from our mother
monolayer of 2D materials is also included.
star, i.e., the Sun, is the power generation

R. Verduci, V. Romano N. Yaghoobi Nia, A. Di Carlo

Department of ChiBioFarAm ISM-CNR Institute of Structure of Matter
University of Messina National Research Council
Messina I-98166, Italy Roma I-00133, Italy
G. Brunetti, C. Ciminelli G. D’Angelo
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Polytechnic University of Bari Physical Sciences and Earth Sciences
Bari I-70125, Italy University of Messina
E-mail: [email protected] Messina I-98166, Italy
N. Yaghoobi Nia, A. Di Carlo E-mail: [email protected]
CHOSE-Department of Electronics Engineering G. D’Angelo
University of Rome “Tor Vergata” CNR
Roma I-00133, Italy Institute for Chemical-Physical Processes (IPCF)
E-mail: [email protected] Messina I-98158, Italy

The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article

can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202200125.
© 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-
VCH GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms of the Crea-
tive Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202200125

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (1 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of the several PGSs used for different space missions.

Power generation system Type of mission Pros Cons

Nonrechargeable batteries Short duration missions • Inexpensive • Can only be used once
• Lightweight
• High energy density
• No risks associated to nuclear wastes/
accidents
Fuel cells Short duration missions • Low specific mass • Expensive
• Long lifetime • Not mature technology
• Lightweight • Safety issues
• No risks associated to nuclear wastes/
accidents
Photovoltaic Long duration and inner planets missions • Stand-alone power generation • Dependence on orbit features (day/night
• Renewable and sustainable energy source cycles, geometrical angle of incidence, etc.)
• No risks associated to nuclear wastes/ • Need of storage system
accidents • Fabrication and installation of solar panels
are expensive
• Solar panel take up lots of space
Nuclear Long duration and outer planets missions • Inexpensive source of energy • Nonrenewable
• A small amount of uranium is required to • Environmental impact
produce a lot of energy • Potential of nuclear accidents
• It is not affected by outside conditions • Security threat
• Expensive safety equipment
Rechargeable batteries Long duration and inner/outer planets • High power density • Expensive
missions • High discharge rate • Safety issues
• Good low temperature performance • Low energy density
• No risks associated to nuclear wastes/
accidents

system (PGS). Depending on the specific mission (duration and and 0.1% of that at 1 AU, respectively.[3] However, the use of
distance from the Sun evaluated in terms of astronomical unit- NPSs raises several safety issues. For example, accidents
AU, i.e., the average distance between the Sun and the Earth, resulting from launch failures and inadvertent re-entry may
which is ≈149.6 million km) and the electric power demand, create dangerous conditions for both people and terrestrial
several technologies can be used to obtain an efficient power environment.[8] For this reason, in the last decades PV research
supply.[2] The advantages and disadvantages of the various and technology developments paved the way for the exploita-
PGSs are summarized in Table 1. tion of SCs also for satellites travelling into deep space beyond
For very short missions (some weeks/months), electrochem- Mars, by employing several strategies depending on the investi-
ical power sources such as non-rechargeable batteries and fuel gated technology.[3,9] For instance, Stardust (sent to the comets
cells can be employed.[2] For longer missions (several years), Wild 2 and Tempel 1, 2.7 AU),[10] Dawn (used for the explora-
photovoltaic (PV) devices or nuclear power systems (NPSs) in tion of the largest asteroid Vesta and the dwarf planet Ceres,
conjunction with rechargeable batteries are the only available 3.0 AU),[11] Juno (currently studying Jupiter, 5.4 AU),[12] and
options to provide uninterrupted and stable electrical power.[2] Rosetta (commissioned for analysis of the comet 67P/Chury-
Satellites for inner planets missions (i.e., Mercury 0.4 AU, umov-Gerasimenko, 5.3 AU)[13] are solar-powered spacecraft
Venus 0.7 AU, Earth 1.0 AU, and Mars 1.5 AU)[3] employ solar designed to operate at great distances from the Sun.
cells (SCs).[2] This is due to the fact that at these distances the Usually, SCs are heterostructured devices made up by several
power density of sunlight is sufficient for the production of different materials piled up onto a substrate. Currently, the most
electricity. Specifically, at 1 AU the irradiance of the sun on the used light harvesters in PV technologies for space applications are
outer Earth’s atmosphere (with a spectral distribution indicated Si and semiconductors used for multijunction solar cells (MJSCs)
as AM0) is 1367 W m−2.[4,5] However, the output power (1–2 W) such as Ge, III–V semiconductors like GaAs, InP, and their alloys
generated by a single SC is not enough for space vehicles (InGaP, InGaAs, InGaNAs, AlInGaP, and AlInGaAs).[14–17]
that require several kW of electric power, thus solar arrays In particular, InGaP/InGaAs/Ge 3JSCs and AlInGaP/AlIn-
are used.[6,7] A solar array is made up by several solar panels GaAs/InGaAs/Ge 4JSCs produced by several companies such
(or modules), that comprise more SCs connected together (in as, Azur Space, Spectrolab, SolAero, and CESI (with different
series and/or parallel ways). Quite differently, for satellites for size, formats, and thickness) and qualified for different space
outer planets missions (i.e., Jupiter 5.2 AU, Saturn 9.6 AU, missions (according to the European and the American Space
Uranus 19.2 AU, and Neptune 30.0 AU)[3] working in low inten- Standards), are nowadays the standard in the aerospace field
sity low temperature conditions, NPSs seem the best solution as they offer better performances than the other PV technolo-
to satisfy mission requirements.[2] In fact, the solar irradiance gies.[14–17] For example, commercially available AlInGaP/AlIn-
on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune is 3.7%, 1.1%, 0.28%, GaAs/InGaAs/Ge devices (produced by Azur Space) exhibit a

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (2 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

conditions are manufactured by AzurSpace and qualified for

space missions.[14] However, Si-based SCs are nonflexible, heavy
(with a thickness >100 µm and a specific power of ≈0.38 W g−1)
and require the use of time-consuming and expensive pro-
duction procedures.[14,18] With the growing demand for more
compact, lightweight, and cheaper satellites the need to find
­alternative PV technologies has arisen. In particular, Cu(In,Ga)
Se2 (CIGS) thin film-based SCs represent a promising solution
for next-generation space missions thanks to the high radiation
resistance,[24,25] lightweight (specific power ≈3 W g−1)[18] and the
possibility to be manufactured using flexible substrates through
low-cost techniques (making them adaptable to many kind of
shape and thus allowing the simplification of the spacecrafts
design).[26] Despite their many advantages, CIGS-based SCs
are not commonly used as power source for satellites because
of their relatively low PCE (23.4% for lab-scale devices, under
1 sun AM 1.5G conditions).[22] Finally, in the last decades
another class of materials, hybrid organic–inorganic perovskites
Figure 1. Evolution of the PCE of some PV technologies (data source
such as CH3NH3PbI3 (MAPbI3), have been used for the realiza-
collected from ref. [22]).
tion of perovskite solar cells (PSCs) with PCE reaching values
up to 25.5% (for lab-scale devices, under 1 sun AM 1.5G con-
power conversion efficiency (PCE, defined as the ratio of the ditions).[22] Such devices are showing encouraging results[27,28]
electrical power produced by the SC to the incident power on for their future use in space applications because of i) the produc-
the SC)[4] up to 32% at the beginning of life (BOL) under 1 sun tion through low cost solution-processed techniques,[29,30] ii) the
AM0 illuminations and a PCE up to 28.7% at the end of life realization of flexible devices with low weight (with a thickness
(EOL), i.e., after 1 MeV electron irradiation with a dose of 1015 <5 µm and a specific power of 23 W g−1, the highest of all PV
particles cm−2, currently resulting the best performing space technologies),[18,29] and iii) the excellent radiation hardness.[31–33]
SC.[14] Despite their high performances, MJSCs suffer from Figure 1 shows the evolution of PCE of the several PV technol-
the shortcomings of being rigid, thick (ranging from ≈80 to ogies discussed in this work, while Table 2 summarizes some
≈200 µm),[14–17] heavy, i.e., with a specific power of ≈0.4–0.8 W g−1 technological and performance metrics of both commercially
for a InGaP/GaAs/Ge 3JSC[18,19] (although the proper engi- available (MJSCs and Si-based SCs) and promising alternatives
neering of the metal contact can lead to values up to 3.8 W g−1 (CIGS-based SCs and perovskite SCs) for space applications.
for InGaP/GaAs/InGaAs)[20] and produced through complex There are several articles and reviews dealing with different PV
fabrication processes (making them extremely expensive).[21] technologies for space applications (for example, Si-based SCs,[34–36]
Nowadays, the research activity on innovative PV technologies MJSCs,[21,37,38] CIGS-based SCs,[39–41] and PSCs[27,31–33,42,43])
for future missions, e.g., for megaconstellation programs, is but, to the best of our knowledge, a systematic overview on
focused not only on increasing the PCE (due to higher power this topic that includes and compares them all has not been
demands) but also on reducing costs. In this regard, cheaper provided yet. Herein, we provide a summary of both commer-
production processing techniques have been proposed for cially available PV technologies (Si-based SCs and MJSCs) and
single-junction devices based on Si (PCE = 26.1% for lab-scale some of the promising ones (CIGS-based SCs and PSCs) for
devices, under 1 sun AM 1.5G illumination),[22] making them space missions. This review is organized as follows: first, the
appealing especially for short duration missions. For example, physical processes underlying the operation of an SC and the
the satellites of the Starlink megaconstellation (constructed physical properties that guide the selection of semiconductor
by SpaceX) are equipped with Si solar arrays.[23] Currently, materials for the production of PV devices are discussed. In
Si-based SCs with a PCE of 16.9% at BOL under 1 sun AM0 the second part, we describe the space environment and the

Table 2. Comparisons of several technological and performance parameters of the main PV technologies currently used (MJSCs and Si-based SCs) or
under investigation (CIGS-based SCs and PSCs) in the field space applications.

Multijunction Silicon Cu(In,Ga)Se2 Perovskite

Efficiency High Medium Medium Medium
Lab-scale record 47.1% 26.1% 23.4% 25.5%
Commercially available for space Up to 32% ≈17% Not available Not available
Radiation hardness High High Excellent High
Specific power Low – Medium Low Medium High
−1
0.4–3.8 W g 0.38 W g−1 3W g−1 23 W g−1
Flexibility Low Low High High
Fabrication cost High High Low Low

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (3 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Table 3. Comparison of the energy bandgap (Eg), Urbach energy (Eu), electron (μe) and hole (μh) mobilities, and diffusion length (LD) of semiconduc-
tors typically used in PV devices.

Material Eg [eV] EU [meV] μe [cm2 V−1 s−1] μh [cm2 V−1 s−1] LD [µm] Refs.
c-Si 1.12 11 1450 500 100 [51–53]
GaAs 1.42 7.5 8 400 100–900 [51,53,54]
CIGS 1–1.7 16 100 2.5 0.3–0.52 [55–57]
CdTe 1.57 10 1100 100 0.4–1.6 [51,58,59]
Ge 0.66 – 3900 1800 – [51]
InGaP 1.34–2.26 9 400–2000 35 2 [60–63]
MAPbI3 1.6 15 1.4 0.9 0.3–1 [49,53,64]

specific requirements that an SC must meet to withstand the for example, in the case of Si, GaAs, and MAPbI3 the EU is 11,
rigid and harsh conditions in which it operates. In the third 7.5, and 15 meV (Table 3).[49] The latter is an interesting result,
part, we summarize the performance of each type of space since both Si and GaAs are produced as single crystalline mate-
SC and the effects that the hostile space environment (consid- rials,[50] while perovskites can be easily processed by solution-
ering, for example, high energy particle radiations and thermal based techniques (that are more prone toward the formation of
fluctuations) has on the properties of different PV technologies. a microcrystalline structure).[29,30]
Finally, a perspective about the development of PV devices for Once electron–hole pairs are photogenerated, they can form
future space missions is presented. a neutral bound state (called exciton) that reduces the number
of available free carriers and increases the probability of recom-
bination events (the recombination of charge carriers before
2. Materials and Physical Properties for their separation is termed geminate recombination).[65] The
binding energy (EB) of excitons ranges between tens (Wannier–
Photovoltaic
Mott excitons) to thousands (Frenkel excitons) of meV.[65] In the
In SCs, semiconductors are used to absorb sunlight and pho- former case, EB can be calculated by considering the exciton as
togenerated electron–hole pairs. Such charge carriers are then an hydrogenic system obtaining: E B ∝ −m r∗ε r−2 , where m r∗ is
transported through the device and finally collected at the elec- the reduced mass of the electron–hole pair and εr is the rela-
trodes. Thus, the working principle of SCs can be divided into tive dielectric function of the material.[66] It is then clear that
three main steps: i) light absorption and generation of charge the electronic and dielectric properties of the light harvester are
carriers, ii) separation and transport of charge carriers, and iii) fundamental to generate free charge-carriers.
collection of charge carriers. The optimization of these three Afterward, the free electrons and holes must be further sepa-
aspects is fundamental to improve device performances. rated and transported toward the interfaces with the electrodes.
In particular, efficient sunlight absorption requires the use of Separation strategies exploit both drift (due to the presence of
semiconductors with an energy bandgap (Eg) lying in the vis– an electric field, usually arising because of junctions formed
IR range, since the emission spectrum of the sun is centered between the light harvester and charge transporting layers)
in this region.[44] Photons with energy equal or higher than and diffusion (caused by a gradient of carrier concentration)
Eg can be absorbed, thus an optimal light harvester should be processes.[4,67,68] Efficient transport stems from i) the ability of
characterized by a small Eg (Table 3). However, small Eg light electrons/holes to travel quickly within all the layers making
harvesters usually lose a huge amount of solar energy because up the SC (which is quantitatively expressed by the mobility μ)
of thermalization (i.e., energy transfer between charge carriers) and ii) the low recombination rates of charge carriers. In inor-
and cooling (consisting in the emission of phonons) of hot-car- ganic materials such as Si and GaAs, three main recombination
riers,[4,45] so a trade-off exists in the choice of Eg, underlying the mechanisms occur: i) nonradiative (due to trap states arising
need for its proper engineering. Quantitatively, the absorption from imperfections of the crystal structure), ii) radiative (associ-
of radiation is described by means of the absorption coefficient ated to the recombination of one electron with a hole), and iii)
(α) that should be panchromatic (to absorb the majority of the Auger (a multiparticle process involving also the emission of
sunlight) and high (so that thin samples can be used to harvest phonons).[4,66,69] The diffusion length (LD), which represents the
the whole solar spectrum, reducing the cost of the resulting SC). average length that charge carriers can travel through a mate-
Figure 2 shows the comparisons between α values for a variety rial, can be estimated by extracting the recombination rates of
of semiconductors used for PV applications. these processes. Consequently, a light harvest should possess
Noteworthy, for each material α does not show a steep an LD higher or equal to its thickness, to ensure that electrons/
increase at the corresponding Eg value, i.e., sub-bandgap absorp- holes are efficiently collected at the interfaces. Table 3 lists the
tion occurs. This is due to the inevitable presence of defects, values of μe, μh, and LD for several PV materials.
in the crystal structure of semiconductors, which adds avail- The performances of SCs are evaluated in terms of several
able energy states within the bandgap. As a result, α shows an parameters (determined from the current–density–voltage
exponential trend for energies lower than Eg, i.e., α (E ) ∝ eE /EU , (J–V) characteristics under illumination) including the short-
where EU is the Urbach energy.[48] Thus, EU can be used to circuit current density (JSC), the open-circuit voltage (VOC),
quantitatively compare the insurgence of such defect states: the fill factor (FF), and the PCE.[4] The JSC is the current that

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (4 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

of atoms in the molecule or crystal unit forming the building

block of the material. The classification ranges from wafer-
based technologies (such as crystalline Si or GaAs) to commer-
cially available devices (as amorphous Si, CdTe, and CIGS) and
emerging thin film SCs (as those based on perovskite, organic
and quantum dots). Some correlations between complexity and
performance have been experimentally demonstrated, i.e., the
cost and PCE decreases or increases, respectively, as the mate-
rial complexity increases.[72]
Currently, crystalline Si-based SCs are the most commercially
widespread. However, Si has the disadvantage of being an indi-
rect-bandgap material, thus high thicknesses (>100 µm, which
are comparable or even higher than its LD, Table 3) are required
to optimize light-harvesting. Lab-scale Si-based SCs hold a
record of PCE = 26.1%, while modules show PCE = 24.4%.[22,73]
On the contrary, III–V semiconductors have direct bandgaps
and high α, so theoretically 1–2 µm thick GaAs-based SCs can
reach PCE = 30%.[50] Indeed, the current record for the highest
PCE of single-junction lab-scale SCs is that of GaAs with 27.8%
Figure 2. Dependence of α to excitation wavelenght for several semiconduc- for single crystal and 29.1% for thin-film.[21,22] However, the use
tors used in the PV industry. (data source for MAPbI3, Si, GaAs and Ge col-
of this technology is mainly hindered by the expensive costs of
lected from ref. [46] while for CIGS and InP collected from ref. [47]).
both raw materials and fabrication processes and issues related
to the disposal of As.[67] A very attractive class of materials is
flows through the SC when V = 0, i.e., when the SC is short that of CIGS since the bandgap can be tuned by proper engi-
circuited.[4] The VOC is the maximum value of V available from neering of the chemical composition, it can be deposited on
an SC when J = 0, i.e., when the SC is in open circuit condi- flexible substrates, low thicknesses are required to harvest light
tion.[4] The FF is the ratio of the maximum power generated and low temperature techniques are used for the fabrication of
by the SC to the product of JSC and VOC.[4] Table 4 summarizes CIGS-based SCs.[50] According to the Shockley–Quiesser limit,
the best reported values of these parameters for the discussed high theoretical PCEs are expected for devices using these mate-
PV technologies. The incident power is that of a reference spec- rials, but still lower values than Si-based SCs have been reported
trum, for example in terrestrial applications the global air mass both on lab-scale (23.4%) and modules (19.2%).[22,73] Among
1.5 (AM 1.5G) standard is typically used (i.e., the sunlight spectral the emerging technologies, perovskites gained huge attention
distribution taking into account the absorption deriving from because of their tunable bandgap (by engineering the chemical
the atmosphere’s constituents, corresponding to 1000 W m−2 composition), high and panchromatic α allowing thin samples
for 1 sun illumination),[70] while the AM0 (i.e., the sunlight (≈500 nm) to absorb the whole solar spectrum, low cost and fab-
spectral distribution outside the atmosphere, characterized by rication from liquid solutions.[30,74–76] As a result, currently lab-
an intensity of 1367 W m−2 at 1 sun conditions).[5] Usually PCEs scale perovskite-based SCs show PCE = 25.5%.[22] However, such
of SCs working under AM0 conditions are lower with respect to devices still suffer from stability issues mainly related to mois-
the AM 1.5G case, since the absence of the atmosphere results ture and oxygen contamination, that hinder their widespread as
in increased contribution in the UV and IR region of the solar a single-junction PV technology.[77] With the aim to overcome the
spectrum that are scarcely photo-converted.[71] Shockley–Quiesser limit, several strategies have been proposed,
It is worth emphasizing that the maximum theoretical PCEs such as the use of lenses and mirrors to increase the intensity
are limited by restrictions due to the processes involved during of the input solar radiation (concentrated PV systems)[78] and
solar-energy conversion. Indeed, for an SC using a single light- MJSCs. The latter kind of device consists of several individual
harvester with a bandgap of 1.34 eV, at a temperature of 300 K light harvesters (called also subcells) with increasing bandgaps
and under 1 sun AM 1.5G illumination, detailed balance limit stacked on top of each other and connected in series.[79] This
predicts a maximum PCE of 33% (Shockley–Quiesser limit).[70] structure favors a more efficient absorption of the solar spec-
Such limit increases to 66% for a SC made up by an ideal infi- trum, indeed MJSCs hold the record for the highest PCEs in
nite sequence of light harvesters (this idea led to the realization both lab-scale and modules cases (47.1% and 40.6%, respectively,
of the so-called MJSCs, which are discussed in more details in both values referring to concentrated 4-JSCs).[22,73]
the following paragraphs). For the case of AM0 illumination, the However, crystalline Si remains the technology to beat, since
maximum (PCE = 30.1%) occurs for a bandgap of 1.26 eV. the emerging PV technologies show complex manufacturing
In general, PV technologies fall into three broad catego- processes and are more expensive. In general, much work
ries: wafer-based cells (traditional crystalline Si and III–V has to be done to identify the most appropriate technology to
semiconductors); commercial thin-film cells (amorphous manufacturing low cost, robust, flexible, and lightweight solar
Si, CdTe, and CIGS); and emerging thin-film technologies modules. Some new applications can be investigated for the
(perovskite, organic, and quantum dot solar cells). To classify novel thin film PV materials, such as absorbing ultraviolet and/
those PV technologies a well-established framework based or infrared light, being transparent for the visible light.
on the complexity of the light absorbing material, has been A strong research effort is expected to develop new con-
proposed.[72] This complexity concept is related to the number cepts on solar cells based on carbon nanotubes, hot carrier,

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (5 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Table 4. Confirmed SCs parameters measured under the global AM 1.5G spectrum (1000 W m−2) at 25 °C.

PV technology PCE [%] VOC [V] JSC [mA cm−2] FF [%] Refs.
Si (single crystal) 26.1 0.73 42.62 84.3 [80]
Si (heterostructures) 26.7 0.74 42.5 84.7 [81]
CIGS 23.4 0.73 39.58 80.4 [82]
CIGS (flexible) 20.82 0.73 36.74 77.2 [83]
Perovskite 25.5 1.19 25.74 83.2 [84]
Perovskite (flexible) 21.10 1.13 23.79 78.9 [85]
InGaP/GaAs/InGaAs 37.9 3.06 14.27 86.7 [86]

intermediate bandgap, quantum well and quantum dot, perov- has been established for electrons and protons at different
skite solar cells, perovskite/Si, and perovskite/CIGS tandems. altitudes around Earth’s atmosphere.[89,91,98,99] As concerns
Attention should be paid also on solar arrays, which are indirectly ionizing radiations (γ-rays and neutrons), it was esti-
demanded to cover all customers’ requirements. This means mated that a space SC can accumulate a dose of: i) ≈10 000 Gy
the need of an additional effort on the development of the solar of γ radiation (in 20 years, at low and medium Earth orbit)[100]
array technology and, in particular, of the panel substrate tech- and ii) 2.8 × 1011 particles cm−2 (in one year) of neutrons (with
nology (rigid, flexible), deployment mechanisms, PV assembly energy varying from 10−1 to 1011 eV) at the International Space
technology, new in-line testing methods and electrical measure- Station (ISS) orbit.[101] Therefore, on-ground experiments are
ment techniques.[87] usually conducted through accelerated tests, i.e., by accumu-
lating such high radiation doses, with the aim to simulate long-
lasting use of devices in the space environment. The fourth
3. Space Environment and Requirements factor responsible of space-induced degradation is represented
by thermal fluctuations (usually ranging between at least
for Space Solar Cells
−180 and 150 °C around Earth orbit).[102] Thermal cycles are very
3.1. Space Environment Features dangerous for spacecraft materials and devices since they can
cause thermal stresses and eventually cracking of some com-
Understanding the space environment and its effects on space ponents or delamination of several layers in heterostructured
vehicles is of paramount importance for the successful design SCs.[91,92] So thermal control systems are fundamental to main-
and operation of SCs for different space missions. According to tain the space vehicle at an appropriate temperature range.[92,103]
the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, the space environment All the factors discussed up to this point are deeply influenced
can be described through seven components.[88] The first one by the solar activity (fifth component), i.e., phenomena occur-
is plasma (or solar wind), i.e., the stream of charged particles ring on the sun’s surface, because it varies the energy and den-
flowing out of the solar corona,[88,89] representing a serious sity distribution of the emitted plasma.[89,91] The sixth factor
threat to the long lasting function of spacecrafts because it can described by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Centre is the neu-
induce surface charging, electrostatic discharge, power loss, and tral atmosphere that influences the lifetime of spacecrafts com-
short circuit in electronic and PV components.[90–92] Such effects ponents mainly because of the presence of atomic oxygen and
can be mitigated through shielding strategies and active control high vacuum conditions.[92] While the former is responsible of
of potential.[92–94] Moreover, when the solar wind approaches several physical and chemical reactions like chemical bonds
Earth, interactions with the geomagnetic field occur (second breaking, surface oxidation, and erosion of materials,[104] which
component of the space environment) which typically trap the can be mitigated through the use of anticorrosive materials and
incoming charged particles in two regions, called Van Allen coatings;[105,106] vacuum induces several detrimental phenomena
radiation belts. Specifically, the inner (extending from an alti- such as materials outgassing, adhesion and cold welding, mate-
tude of 3200 to 16 000 km) and the outer (ranging from 13 000 to rials evaporation, sublimation, and decomposition.[91,92] Hence,
38 000 km) belts trap high-energy protons and electrons, respec- pressure control systems and sealing strategies are needed.
tively.[89,91,95] It is then clear that spacecrafts orbiting at these Finally, the seventh factor accounts for the presence of mete-
altitudes must withstand such conditions, i.e., the effects due oroids and space debris,[91] a threat to spacecrafts because of
to radiation (the third factor characterizing space). In general, the catastrophic consequences of possible collisions (struc-
directly ionizing radiations (protons and electrons) can damage tural damage of materials, surface erosion, and surface effects
spacecraft’s components through ionization and formation of causing variations in material properties).[91,92] Thus, several
defects.[96,97] Similarly, hazards related to indirectly ionizing methods have been adopted aiming to protect spacecrafts and
radiations (neutrons and γ-rays) are also problematic for the to control/reduce the amount of debris (for example, metallic
stability of spacecrafts since these can release charged particles shielding, recovery, deorbiting, and laser removal).[92,107,108] Of
within materials or atom displacement (due to scattering or the seven factors aforementioned, the most dangerous for the
recoiling of nuclei).[96] Consequently, it is fundamental to know stability and lifetime of materials for SCs is due to radiation
the average fluxes and energies of all radiation sources afore- effects, since the remaining ones can be addressed by adopting
mentioned. For example, a flux of 103 to 108 particles cm−2 s−1 shielding strategies or by optimal spacecrafts designing.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (6 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

3.2. Other Requirements for Space Solar Cells and Arrays satellite is in flight, it is imperative that SCs have high relia-
bility to withstand mechanical stresses during launching phase.
Besides the effects of the harsh space environment, several Main parameters in terms of power, to be addressed in
other technological and economic aspects must be considered future exploration missions, with new platforms and constella-
for the development of space SCs and solar arrays. Firstly, since tion programs, are power per unit area P/A (W m−2), power per
the area available for mounting SCs on board of a spacecraft unit volume when stowed P/V (kW m−3) and power to weight
is limited, it needs to have a high PCE to reduce the size of P/M (W kg−1) ratio. Effective requirements for solar generators
the solar arrays. To date, the best performing commercially would be around P/V = 60 kW m−3, P/M = 200 W kg−1, and
available SCs for space applications are offered by MJSCs, with a power generation capacity of around 150 kW. This could be
PCEs ranging between 29% and 32% at BOL, AM0 conditions, achieved using new configurations of innovative solar cell
and 1 AU.[14–17] Moreover, a power output of the order of 20 kW arrays and technologies, because the key power values exceed
(generally using rigid panel arrays) is the standard required on those currently at the state of the art for large telecom satellites,
many satellites.[3] For higher power demands, flexible blanket and, also for next developments of flexible solar array.
array technology is more attractive because it allows to realize Also, it should be noted that in addition to the solar cell
solar arrays (where rigid substrates are substituted by mesh which is a very important component to design, new concepts
or polyimide sheets) that are stowed in a small volume during of solar arrays, cover-glasses, assembly technologies, and meas-
launch and unfolded/unrolled once the satellite is in orbit.[3] It urement techniques have to be developed.
should be noted that this terminology does not refer to the flex-
ibility of the SCs (which comprise unbendable materials such
as Si and III–V semiconductors) but to the overall array, which 4. Solar Cells Used in Space
comprises several interconnected panels that can thus be bent
along the formed hinges.[109] Flexible blanket arrays include, for 4.1. Solar Cells in Space Missions
example, International Space Station arrays (manufactured by
Lockheed-Martin), the Ultraflex (manufactured by Northrup The first solar-powered satellite, Vanguard 1 was launched into
Grumman Innovation System) that was used on the Mars space by the United States, on 17 March 1958.[3] In this case, the
Phoenix Lander and the Mars InSight Lander and Roll Out energy was supplied by single-crystal Si-based SCs (providing a
Solar Array (manufactured by Deployable Space Systems).[3] In total power of about 1 Watt with PCE = 10% at 28 °C). Remark-
particular, the ISS solar arrays comprise 262.400 Si-based SCs ably, Vanguard 1 remained operative for 6 years outperforming
welded and glued to eight thin, flexible blankets, generating the battery powered systems that operated for only 20 days.[114]
up to 160 kW.[110,111] However, since both MJSCs and Si-based For over two decades, Si-based SCs were used to supply the
SCs are rigid and expensive, the use of alternative low-cost power for space vehicles, with an increase of the devices’ PCE
and truly flexible materials for SCs (such as CIGS-based SCs from <10% to >15%.[3] However, at the end of 1970s, GaAs-based
and PSCs) is extremely interesting for space missions. Flexible SCs replaced Si because of their higher performances and radia-
SCs have also the advantage of higher specific power (i.e., the tion resistance.[3] The first satellite powered by GaAs-based SCs
ratio of generated power per kg of mass, measured in W kg−1) was the Navigation Technology Satellite 2 (NTS-2), placed into
with respect to rigid SCs as will be discussed in more detail orbit in 1977.[115] During the 1990s, further advances in PV tech-
in the following sections. This is beneficial from an economic nologies led to the fabrication of MJSCs, which use two or more
point of view because it allows to reduce the quantity of mate- light-harvesters to optimize the absorption of sunlight. These
rial sent in orbit and thus to minimize the expensive launching devices are usually made up by III–V alloy semiconductors,
costs (ranging between ≈30 000 and ≈1500 $ kg−1).[112,113] Finally, offering increased efficiencies and higher radiation resistance
flexible PV materials would allow the development of truly rol- compared to Si-based SCs.[3] Hughes HS 601HP, launched in
lable and lightweight solar arrays. Currently, flexible blanket 1997, represented the first example of a spacecraft using double-
solar arrays have a specific power of ≈150 W kg−1 and an areal junction SCs.[116] Starting from 2000s, despite the expensive
power density of ≈338 W m−2 which is higher than that of rigid fabrication costs due to the scarcity of materials and the com-
panels (≈80 W kg−1 and ≈330 W m−2, respectively). According plex production processes, 3JSCs became the standard for space
to a NASA report from December 2017, in the near future (by applications, for two main reasons. First of all, commercially
2030), research and technology development will allow to pro- available 3JSCs reach PCE ≈30% at the beginning of life (BOL)
duce MJSCs with a PCE of ≈38% and to realize flexible solar (the highest of all photovoltaic technologies). The second reason
arrays with power output >100 kW and specific power up is the high resistance to radiations, with commercial devices
to 250 W kg−1.[3] These ambitious goals seem reasonable, as showing at the EOL a PCE of ≈27% after irradiation with 1 MeV
MJSCs currently show PCEs up to 32%[14–17] and in recent times electrons with fluxes of 1015 particles cm−2. [14–17]
(June 2021), the solar power of the ISS has received an impor- In particular, in mid 2010s a great effort was made to develop
tant upgrade thanks to the newly installed roll-out photovoltaic the GaInP/GaInAs/Ge MJSCs. Best performance was achieved
arrays (leading to an overall increase of the station power of by the AZUR SPACE Solar Power GmbH with an efficiency
55 kW).[111] of 26.5% at EOL,[87] which was really the practical limit of that
These significant improvements in the performances of technology. For this reason, in the last ten years, an impor-
SCs and solar array will ensure to meet the objectives of the tant research activity has been carried out to develop a new
bolder and more sophisticated future space missions.[3] Finally, and more efficient technology, as discussed in the following
since replacement or repair of devices are impossible once the sections.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (7 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

4.1.1. Configurations and Operational Principle of Space MJSCs For these reasons, new fabrication options were developed
to use lattice-mismatched materials: the mechanical stacking
Although rigid and heavy (with a specific power of method, the metamorphic growth and the wafer bonding.[128]
0.4–0.8 W g−1),[18,19] MJSCs based on III–V semiconductors dom- The former is not commonly used for large-scale MJSCs pro-
inate PV technologies for space applications because of their duction because each subcell has to be grown on a different
high performances (PCE = ≈32% industrially available)[14–16] substrate, which must be afterward removed, making the
and radiation resistance (with PCE retention ranging between entire fabrication process more complicated (in particular, each
≈90% and ≈87% with respect to electron or proton irradiation, subcell requires its own electrical contact, thus a 3JSC would
as thoroughly discussed later in this section).[14–16] Generally, an require six contacts) and expensive (Figure 3c).[21] The second
MJSC consists of several subcells (with increasing bandgaps) method overcomes the constraint of using lattice-matched
grown through epitaxial methods on one substrate and stacked semiconductors through the deposition of a transparent buffer
on top of each leading to a standard structure with two terminal layer (TBL) between the subcells.[117] These TBLs are character-
contacts (Figure 3a,b). The subcells are connected in series ized by a lattice constant that varies gradually from the value of
through the introduction of tunnel junctions in order to avoid the bottom semiconductor to that of the semiconductor sequen-
the formation of inverse p–n junctions which would block the tially deposited on top, thus the propagation of defects and
current flow.[21] dislocations during the growth of the MJSCs is mitigated.[129]
However, the realization of these devices can be challenging According to the growth direction (from narrow- to wide-Eg
for several reasons including the need for high-quality crys- subcells or vice versa), this metamorphic growth method can be
talline materials[50] and the issues related to the monolithic classified into upright and inverted metamorphic (UMM-IMM)
deposition of several light-harvesters on top of each other (Figure 3d,e).[117] The IMM cell architecture has two advantages
(Figure 3a,b).[117] compared to the UMM cell. First, the two uppermost subcells
Currently, the state of the art of these devices for space (those with larger Eg) are grown on a lattice-matched substrate
applications is the 3JSC Ga0.50In0.50P/Ga0.99In0.01As/Ge followed by the metamorphic growth of the remaining two sub-
(Figure 3a) grown on Ge substrate. Although in this device cells (Figure 3e). In this way, the propagation of defects from
all materials are almost perfectly lattice-matched (LM), the lattice mismatched layers into the top junctions is controlled
the bandgap combination of the absorbers is not optimal. In (dislocation density <10−4 cm−2 with respect to the typical value
fact, the Ge bottom cell generates about 50% more current >10−6 cm−2 in the UMM structure).[130] Thanks to the superior
than the other two light-harvesters and, since the current of quality of the larger Eg subcells, the IMM MJSCs show better
an MJSC is limited by the active layer producing the min- performances with respect to UMM MJSCs. Moreover, since in
imum photocurrent (as dictated by Kirchhoff’s current law), IMM the lower Eg subcells are the last ones to be deposited,
the excess current is wasted as heat.[118] The current-mismatch the choice of the materials for these junctions is more flex-
issue experienced by 3JSC is avoided in 4JSC. Indeed, the use ible (i.e., it is not restricted only to Ge).[117,130] Finally, the wafer
of a further absorber layer, between InGaAs and Ge, success- bonding process basically allows the merging of SCs grown on
fully reduces the light reaching Ge and consequently its photo- different wafer substrates. This growth method can be divided
current. In particular, theoretical calculations have shown that, into two technological types: direct bonding and interme-
for the added light harvester, an Eg = 1 eV is required.[117,119] diate-layer bonding (Figure 3f).[131,132] In the former method,
The only materials that can meet this condition, while being two semiconductor wafers (of almost any material) adhere to
LM to both InGaAs and Ge, are the dilute nitride compounds each other through atomic bonds due to van der Waals forces
(InxGa1-xNyAs1-y) (Figure 3b). Indeed, the bandgap and the lat- (without the use of gluing layers or external forces).[132–134] The
tice constant of these compounds can be tuned to the desired direct bonding technique requires three strict conditions to be
values by adapting the In and N contents.[120] In particular, met: good mechanical strength, high optical transmittance, and
optimal matching (for both lattice and current issues) for low resistivity at the bonding interface.[132] Moreover, to avoid
the InxGa1-xNyAs1-y compound is obtained when y = 0.3x.[121] the formation of pinholes at the interface of the two wafers,
However, the addition of a InGaNAs layer in a lattice-matched surface energy, roughness, and morphology must be properly
configuration is challenging because of the techniques used engineered.[132,135] In the intermediate-layer case, the surfaces
for its growth, i.e., metal organic vapor phase epitaxy (MOVPE) of two wafers are joined through the introduction of an inter-
or molecular beam epitaxy (MBE).[122] In the former case, the mediate layer (an adhesive, polymer, solder or metal) with
high impurity density of hydrogen and carbon (coming from high ductility and good adhesion with the aim to improve the
the metal organic precursor) leads to a drastic reduction of quality of the bonding interface.[21,131,132] Despite both metamor-
the optoelectronic properties of the resulting film (usually phic growth and wafer bonding favor the realization of MJSCs
exhibiting a carrier diffusion length of ≈10–20 nm) and con- with high PCEs, the manufacturing processes are complex and
sequently of the device performances.[122,123] In the case of expensive.[129]
MBE, the incorporation of N atoms (using plasma sources)[124]
causes the formation of electronic defects that act as nonradia-
tive recombination centers.[120] Thus, with both MOVPE and 4.1.2. Radiation Resistance of Space MJSCs
MBE techniques, the growth of InGaNAs usually results in a
low quality layer (due to the formation of clusters and inter- Here, we report some significant results among the many
stitial defects),[125] so 4JSCs do not reach the theoretical PCE = that have been achieved on the radiation resistance of
41%[21] but still lies at PCE ≈ 30%.[3] MJSCs.[37,38,136–138] In particular, Sharp et al.[37] performed a

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (8 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the fabrication processes of MJSCs. a) Lattice matched 3JCS and partitions of the AM0 spectrum utilization by
a 3JSC. b) Lattice matched 4JCS and partitions of the AM0 spectrum utilization by a 4JSC. c) Schematization of a 4JSC realized by mechanical stacking
method. d) Upright metamorphic 4JSC and representation of the lattice constant variations along the growth direction. e) Inverted metamorphic 4JSC
and representation of the lattice constant variations along the growth direction. f) Schematization of the direct and intermediate layer wafer bonding
process. (a,b) Adapted with permission.[3] Copyright 2017, NASA. (d) Adapted with permission.[126] Copyright 2014, AIP Publishing LLC. (e) Adapted
with permission.[127] Copyright 2010, IEEE.

study concerning the degradation of the PV parameters (short (with energies of 1, 2, and 12 MeV and at fluences between ≈1013
circuit current ISC, VOC, and maximum power PMAX) of a lattice and ≈1016 particles cm−2). As shown in Figure 4a–f, at fixed
matched GaInP/GaAs/Ge 3JSC under irradiation by protons energy values for both ionizing radiations, the performance
(with energies and fluences ranging, respectively, from 50 keV of the SC decreases with increasing fluences. As concerns
to 10 MeV and from ≈ 109 to ≈ 1013 particles cm−2) and electrons the bombardment with electrons, the deterioration of the SC

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (9 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 4. a–f) Degradation of VOC, ISC, and Pmax of an LM GaInP/GaAs/Ge as a function of proton and electron fluence for various particles energies.
Reproduced with permission.[37] Copyright 2020, Wiley.

performance is higher when the electron energy increases ­carrier LD and thus of the PV parameters can be observed after
while, on the contrary, for proton irradiation the largest damage proton bombardment.[38]
is produced by low energy particles (50–200 keV). In particular, Significantly, since in MJSCs current matching is a key
a Pmax retention of 13% and 21% is observed for 1 MeV electrons factor determining the performance of the entire device, it is
at fluence of 1 × 1015 particles cm−2 and for 10 MeV protons at important that SCs keep this condition until EOL. For this
4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2, respectively. reason, with the aim to estimate the current output of each
Recently, Aierken and co-workers[38] studied and compared subcell, the same authors studied the external quantum
the degradation of the photovoltaic and optical properties of efficiency (EQE) of all subcells before and after particles
both Ga0.5In0.5P/Ga0.97In0.03As/Ge LM 3JSC and Ga0.5In0.5P/ irradiation. The EQE spectra for the nonirradiated IMM
GaAs/Ga0.7In0.3As IMM 3JSC under 1 MeV electron and and LM 3JSCs and after irradiation with 1 MeV electron at a
10 MeV proton irradiation (with fluences ranging from ≈1011 to fluence of 1.0 × 1015 particles cm−2 and 10 MeV proton at a flu-
≈1015 particles cm−2). It is worth highlighting that this work ence of 4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2, are shown in Figure 5e–f,h,i.
compares the radiation resistance and performances of LM From these figures it can be observed that proton irradiation
and IMM architectures, with particular emphasis on the cur- causes more damage in both cell structures compared to elec-
rent matching condition which is pivotal for the realization of tron irradiation.
efficient MJSCs. Both SC structures suffer from losses in Voc Interestingly, IMM and LM show a very small variation in
and Isc (and consequently in Pmax) as the electron and proton the EQE of the GaInP top subcell. Furthermore, the IMM struc-
fluences increase (as shown in Figure 5a–c). Specifically, Pmax ture suffers from performance losses in the GaAs middle and
for IMM and LM 3JSC decreases, from its initial value, to GaInAs bottom subcells, while the LM structure reveals degra-
86.3% and 85.0% for electron irradiation and 73.7% and 75.1% dation of the GaInAs middle subcell, and the Ge bottom subcell
for proton irradiation (this trend can also be observed from the changes abnormally.[38] The authors attributed such behavior to
J–V curves reported in Figure 5d,g). Moreover, the degradation both shunt resistances and luminescence coupling, as already
of all the PV parameters is greater under proton irradiation reported by other papers.[139,140] Table 5 reports the value of Jsc
than under electron irradiation. This effect can be explained as derived from EQE spectra for each subcell before and after elec-
a consequence of the bigger density of displacement damage tron and proton irradiation, excluding the Ge absorber. Indeed,
(defects within the semiconductor of each subcell that act as since Ge produces the highest Jsc among the three subcells
nonradiative recombination centers and traps for the electron– before and after irradiation, the same authors do not consider
hole pairs) induced by proton irradiation compared to electron its contribution to the overall performance of LM. From Table 5,
irradiation. As a result, a higher reduction of the minority it can be seen that for IMM the limiting current is that of

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (10 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 5. a–c) Degradation of ISC, VOC, and Pmax of IMM GaInP/GaAs/GaInAs and LM GaInP/GaInAs/Ge solar cells irradiated by 1 MeV electron and
10 MeV proton versus fluences. d) J–V curve of an LM GaInP/GaInAs/Ge solar cell before and after irradiation with 1 MeV electron with a fluence of
1.0 × 1015 particles cm−2 and 10 MeV proton with a fluence of 4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2. e,f) EQE spectra of an LM GaInP/GaInAs/Ge solar cell before
and after irradiation with 1 MeV electron with a fluence of 1.0 × 1015 particles cm−2 and 10 MeV proton with a fluence of 4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2.
g) J–V curve of an IMM GaInP/GaAs/GaInAs solar cell before and after irradiation with 1 MeV electron with a fluence of 1.0 × 1015 particles cm−2 and
10 MeV proton with a fluence of 4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2. h,i) EQE spectra of an IMM GaInP/GaAs/GaInAs solar cell before and after irradiation with
1 MeV electron with a fluence of 1.0 × 1015 particles cm−2 and 10 MeV proton with a fluence of 4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2. Reproduced with permission.[38]
Copyright 2021, Elsevier.

GaInP, before irradiation, and of GaInAs, after bombardment. 4.1.3. Si-Based Solar Cells
In the LM case, the lowest current is that of the GaInAs subcell.
Consequently, these results show that the IMM has a better The conventional structure of a Si-based SC consists of a p–n
current matching condition at the EOL compared to LM and junction, metal contacts on both front and back sides and a
thus the IMM configuration is a promising candidate for space front side antireflection coating (ARC) as shown in Figure 6a.[141]
application. Through the years, the structure of Si-based SCs was modified
The high performance and good radiation tolerance of with the aim to boost the performance. For example, to reduce the
MJSCs make them a promising technology in the space market. recombination loss of the minority carriers at the interface with
However, with the current space exploration possibilities (also the back metal contact, a highly doped region, called back sur-
opened up by the privatization of the space industry) cheaper face field (BSF) is introduced (Figure 6b).[142] Another important
PV technologies are required. For this reason, Si-based SCs improvement was the addition of a metallic thin layer (usually Al,
still remain the main choice for low power (≈0.38 W g−1)[16] and Au, Ag, and Cu) on the back surface to reduce the transmittance
short duration missions, because of their good performances losses, known as the back surface reflector (BSR)[142] (Figure 6c)
and lower production costs.[34] was introduced.[142] Further achievements were obtained by using

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (11 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Table 5. Values of Jsc (extracted from EQE measurements) of Ga0.5In0.5P, GaAs, Ga0.7In0.3As, and Ga0.97In0.03As subcells of the IMM and LM solar cells
irradiated with 1 MeV electron with a fluence of 1.0 × 1015 particles cm−2 and 10 MeV proton with a fluence of 4.35 × 1012 particles cm−2. Reproduced
with permission.[38] Copyright 2021, Elsevier.

IMM 3JSC
Energy of particles Fluence [particles cm−2] JSC [mA cm−2]
Ga0.5In0.5P GaAs Ga0.7In0.3As
1 MeV 0 16.34 16.81 16.70
electron 1.0 × 1015 15.92 16.08 15.89
10 MeV 0 17.01 17.03 17.53
proton 4.35 × 1012 16.54 15.86 15.15
LM 3JSC
Energy of particles Fluence [particles cm−2] JSC [mA cm−2]
Ga0.5In0.5P Ga0.97In0.03As Ge
1 MeV 0 17.92 17.87 –
electron 1.0 × 1015 17.64 16.97 –
10 MeV 0 18.11 17.72 –
proton 4.35 × 1012 17.73 16.29 –

a combination of the BSF and the BSR technologies, resulting in a Van Allen belt accumulating high radiation doses that caused
the so-called back surface field and reflector (BSFR) (Figure 6d).[142] the failure of its Si-based SCs.
To date, the highest PCE for Si-based SC for space applications With the aim to evaluate the life-time of Si-based SCs under
comes from passivated emitter and rear locally-diffused (PERL) extremely hostile radiation environment electron and proton
configuration (PCE > 20.8 under AM0 c­ onditions).[141] The PERL induced degradation were investigated by Yamaguchi et al.[35,36] In
SC consists of i) an inverted pyramid light trapping structure, to particular, BSF Si-based SCs were irradiated with electrons with
minimize surface reflection and improve the amount of sunlight 1 MeV energy and a fluence ranging from 1014 to 1017 particles cm−2.
absorbed by the SC, ii) a double-layer ARC, iii) a localized BSF The remaining factors (i.e., the ratio between the value of the SC
region, and iv) a BSR (Figure 6e).[141] parameters measured after and before particles irradiation) asso-
High-performance devices do not necessarily exhibit a high ciated to ISC, VOC, and Pmax are displayed in Figure 7a.
stability. This implies that a careful analysis of the radiation The results show a gradual reduction of all the aforementioned
resistance of the aforementioned architecture is essential to parameters for fluences < ≈2 × 1016 particles cm−2; for fluences
identify the best performing and long lasting Si-based SC. In ranging between ≈2 × 1016 and ≈5 × 1016 particles cm−2 both ISC
1994 the Engineering Test Satellite-VI experienced a failure of and VOC reveal an anomalous behavior (the former increases
its engine thus it was placed on an elliptical orbit instead of a while the latter decreases); finally for higher fluences the devices
geostationary orbit.[143] As a result, the satellite orbited through completely fail. Same trend was observed by the authors, also

Figure 6. Schematic structures of a) conventional Si-based SC, b) BSF Si-based SC, c) BSR Si-based SC, d) BSFR Si-based SC, and e) PERL Si-based SC.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (12 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 7. Remaining factors of ISC, VOC, and Pmax of BSF Si-based SCs, irradiated with a) 1 MeV electrons and b) 10 MeV protons at varying fluences.
a) Reproduced with permission.[35] Copyright 1996, American Institute of Physics; (b) Reproduced with permission.[36] Copyright 1996, American
Institute of Physics. c) Output power and d) associated remaining factor (under 1 MeV electron irradiation at varying fluence) of Si-based SCs using
the conventional, BSF, BSR, and BSFR designs. e) PCE and f) relative output power of PERL and BSF Si-based SCs. Reproduced with permission.[34]
Copyright 2020, Wiley.

for BSF Si-based SCs irradiated with protons (10 MeV energy (Figure 7c), they have the highest EOL power among several
with fluences ranging between 1011 and 2 × 1014 particles cm−2) high performance designs, including BSF, BSR, and BSFR
as reported in Figure 7b.[36] The authors attribute such trend to (Figure 7d).[34] The same behavior was observed for the case
three different mechanisms: the decrease of the minority-carriers of the PERL architecture (characterized by a very high PCE,
lifetime (which explains the reduction of ISC and VOC in the low- Figure 7e), that suffers from a higher degradation (under bom-
fluence region), the broadening of the depletion layer (which bardment with electrons with 1 MeV energy) with respect to the
is responsible for the anomalous increase of ISC and decrease BSF design (Figure 7f). All these results are related to increased
of VOC), and the increase of the series resistance of the Si layer surface recombination of the front and back interfaces, thus
(responsible for the failure of the device at high fluences).[35,36] a proper engineering of these regions is fundamental for the
A recent work by Yamaguchi et al. showed that, although optimization of the resulting performances and the use of all
conventional Si-based devices show a lower BOL power these architectures in space PV.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (13 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Figure 8. a) Schematic representation of the typical architecture used in CIGS-based SCs. Remaining factors associated to b) PCE, c) FF, d) ISC, and
e) VOC in proton and electron irradiated CIGS-based SCs at different energies (as reported in the associated legends) and fluences. Reproduced with
permission.[39] Copyright 2001, AIP publishing.

5. Recent Developments and Future Perspectives for irradiation with electrons having 1 MeV energy, which is a
of Materials and Device Architectures remarkable result since both Si and GaAs experience the same
losses for fluences at least one order of magnitude lower.[39] As
5.1. CIGS-Based Solar Cells expected, higher electron energies (3 MeV) cause more damage
to the CIGS-based devices, while such SCs exhibit a great resist-
Although MJSCs and Si-based SCs are at the forefront of PV ance to electrons with lower energy (0.5 MeV). The authors
devices for space applications, the need for reduced fabrication propose that the degradation mechanism involves the forma-
and maintenance costs, lightweight and flexibility have stimu- tion of recombination centers within the light harvester, since
lated research toward other materials. Among these alterna- FF (Figure 8c) and JSC (Figure 8d) are basically not affected by
tives, CIGS-based SCs hold great promises in such field since the electron bombardment experiments, while VOC experiences
they are lightweight (specific power ≈3 W g−1),[18] are realized losses (Figure 8e). Quite differently, irradiation with protons
in thin-film architecture (even on flexible substrates such as having an energy of 4 MeV results in the reduction of all the
polyimide or metal sheet)[144] and show an excellent stability PV parameters. However, the critical fluence (i.e., the value
against radiations. Such devices are heterostructured systems for which the remaining factor of PCE is 0.6) is ≈1014 particles
(Figure 8a) comprising: soda-lime glass coated with a Mo layer cm−2, which is still one order of magnitude higher with respect
(acting as electric contact), a p–n junction (formed by a CIGS to that of Si and GaAs.[39]
absorbing layer and a CdS buffer layer), an intrinsic ZnO layer With the aim to analyze proton-induced degradation,
and finally an Al-doped ZnO layer (used as transparent con- Kawakita et al. investigated the mechanisms leading to the
ducting electrode).[145] recovery of such losses.[40] In particular, the authors irradi-
There are several very interesting reports on the radiation ated, with protons having an energy of 3 MeV and fluence of
resistance of CIGS-based SCs. In particular, Jasenek and Rau 1014 particles cm−2, CIGS-based SCs kept at 345 and at 400 K
investigated the effects of high-energy electron and proton irra- and addressed the consequences on the ISC of devices after the
diation (with energies in the MeV range) at great fluences (up bombardment test. Interestingly, ISC decreases with increasing
to 1018 and 1014 particles cm−2, respectively).[39] fluence following a trend which depends on the temperature of
Figure 8b–e illustrates the remaining factor of the SC param- the device (higher temperatures lead to lower current losses).
eters. In particular, Figure 8b shows that fluences > 1017 par- Furthermore, when the irradiation is terminated, the ISC
ticles cm−2 are needed to observe a PCE degradation of 10% recovers its value with a temperature-dependent rate (which is

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (14 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

slower for lower temperature). Indeed, further analysis reveals charge selective layers, there are two different configurations:
that a process is activated at a temperature of ≈380 K that leads planar or mesoscopic regular PSC n–i–p and planar inverted
to the recovery of the ISC value measured prior to the bombard- p–i–n (Figure 9a).[151,152]
ment tests.[40] Similar results were obtained for irradiation with Owing to the crystalline-liquid characteristics,[153–155] MHPs
protons having 0.5 and 10 MeV energy. manifest outstanding defect tolerant and self-healing properties
A remarkable work by Kawakita et al. reported for the first that permit MHPs to sustain high doses of radiation[156] and
time the performances of CIGS-based SCs launched in orbit consequently well suited or space applications. Several tests
on board of the MDS-1 satellite.[41] Interestingly, such spacecraft investigated the effects of γ-rays,[31,157,158] electrons,[33,159–161] and
was placed in an orbit passing through both Van Allen belts, protons[43,159,161,162] on the performance of PSCs. The results of
thus in a very hostile and radiation-rich environment. these studies suggest that PSCs withstand extreme radiation
The trends of the remaining factors associated to ISC and levels making MHPs promising materials for space devices. In
VOC as functions of the mission time show the huge radiation particular, exceptional results about the stability of PSCs under
tolerance of CIGS-based SCs (no losses were observed by the high-dose of γ-ray radiation (reaching accumulated doses up
authors for more than one-year operation). With the aim to to 23 000 Gy) were obtained by Yang et al.[31] who performed a
understand the mechanisms behind such behavior, the authors study on a p–i–n planar structure based on a triple cation MHP
performed also on-ground radiation experiments. As low degra- (Cs0.05MA0.14FA0.81PbBr0.45I2.55). Comparison of the J–V curves
dation had been already reported for electron bombardment,[39] of the PSC before and after irradiation test, Figure 9b shows a
Kawakita et al. focused on the role of protons to the deteriora- decrease of all PV parameters (in particular, PCE lowers from
tion of these devices, comparing the results obtained with and 18.80% to 14.95%). While VOC remained almost unchanged,
without the effects due to thermal-recovery.[41] According to JSC exhibited a significant decrease. This behavior is ascribed
their simulations, after one year, ISC and VOC losses would be to the darkening of the glass substrate (i.e., the loss of optical
5% and 15%, respectively, if thermal-recovery is not considered. transparency due to the formation of color centers)[163,164] after
Conversely, when such effect is considered no loss is observed, γ-ray irradiation. This effect is confirmed by the transmittance
as reported by the experimental results. spectra measurements performed on the ITO/glass sub-
All these results point toward the high radiation stability of strate which confirm the reduction of the transmittance from
CIGS-based SCs, thus shielding strategies can be overcome ≈90% to ≈50–75% after the irradiation (in the spectral range
by the intrinsic resistance of this material to bombardment by between 300 and 800 nm, Figure 9c). When this loss is taken
electrons and protons. As such, this technology represents a into account, the PCE value (after irradiation) becomes 18.20%,
very promising candidate for the realization of new PV solu- which is comparable with that of the pristine device, thus
tions for space applications, with decreased weight, launching evidencing a negligible degradation of the light harvester.
and maintenance costs. Other studies addressed the resistance of PSCs to elec-
tron radiation, as reported by Song et al.[33] (for 1 MeV energy
under accumulated dose levels up to 1016 particles cm−2).
5.2. Perovskite Solar Cells Their devices (n–i–p PSC, with structure FTO/SnO2/C60-SAM/
FA0.7MA0.3PbI3/Spiro-OMeTAD/Au) exhibit a very high starting
Recently, a class of materials called metal halide perovskites PCE of 20.6%. The J–V curves of reference and irradiated
(MHPs) has emerged as an outstanding light harvester for the PSCs (measured in forward and reverse scans) are displayed in
fabrication of PV devices that recently achieved lab-scale PCE Figure 9d revealing a PCE reduction to 12.2% and 3.4% after
exceeding 25%.[22] This is due to the remarkable optoelectronic exposure to electron beam with low (1.3 × 1013 particles cm−2)
properties of such materials such as the high and panchromatic and high (1 × 1015 particles cm−2) fluences, respectively. Such
absorption coefficient (>105 cm−1 in the visible region),[49,66] that performance degradation is mainly attributed to the decrease
allows the realization of thin-film PSCs (with an absorbing of JSC while VOC and FF exhibit small variations (Figure 9e–g).
layer of ≈0.3–0.5 µm).[49] As a consequence, a complete device The authors attribute the JSC losses to the aforementioned phe-
(including the substrate) can reach a specific power of 23 W g−1 nomenon of glass-darkening and to the partial decomposition
(allowing the reduction of space launch costs).[18] Moreover, of the MHP absorber layers.
PSCs can be prepared through low-fabrication costs from solu- An example of proton radiation tolerance was reported
tion-processing techniques, making them cheaper compared by Lang et al.[43] who investigated a p–i–n PSC (glass/ITO/
to other PV technologies[29,30,146] and can be grown on flexible PEDOT:PSS/MAPbI3/PCBM/BCP/Ag) under bombardment
substrates.[147] In addition, low energy payback time (0.35 years) with a 68 MeV protons at accumulated doses up to 1.02 × 1013
and greenhouse gas emission (10.7 g CO2-eq kWh−1) values of particles cm−2. As shown in Figure 9h, VOC and FF remain
the PSCs, compared to 1.52 years and 24.6 g CO2-eq kWh−1 for constant while JSC, and therefore PCE, decrease for doses
the Si benchmark, make them as a promising sustainable alter- >2 × 1011 particles cm−2. Also, in this case, the loss of the PSC
native for all future PV-market scenarios.[148,149] performance is attributed to both the degradation of the MHP
The architecture of a PSC consists of a transparent conduc- absorber layer and to the formation of color centers within the
tive electrode (TCE, such as fluorine-doped tin oxide (FTO) or glass substrate. When considering this phenomenon, a drop
indium tin oxide (ITO)) deposited on top of a glass substrate, of JSC of only 20% is observed at a proton dose of 1013 particle
a perovskite absorbing layer sandwiched between an electron cm−2 (red rhomb in Figure 9h). Remarkably, MHPs show a
transporting layer and a hole transporting layer and a metal higher proton radiation resilience compared to c-Si (blue line
contact.[29,30,150] According to the order of deposition of the in Figure 9h), which begins to degrade at a proton dose at

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (15 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

© 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advenergymat.de

2200125 (16 of 24)

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125
www.advancedsciencenews.com
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

least three orders of magnitude lower (≈1010 particles cm−2). In onboard measurement time. Despite the valuable results achieved
a following study, the same group evaluated the resistance of through these few real space tests, these pioneer attempts are lim-
another MHP light harvester (Cs0.05MA0.17FA0.83Pb(Br0.17I0.83)3) ited to low efficiency tested cells and relatively short flight time,
by using proton beams with energies of 20 and 68 MeV and which need to be addressed in the future activities.
accumulated doses up to 1012 particles cm−2.[32] As observed
in Figure 9i, such PSC shows negligible variations in all PV
parameters during the irradiation tests. In particular, 20 MeV 6. Perspectives on Future Materials for Space PV
protons do not induce severe losses, while for 68 MeV more
pronounced degradation is observed (Figure 9j). Space represents a unique frontier for materials science and
Finally, the possibility to tune the Eg of the MHPs by changing applications as the harsh conditions of the extraterrestrial envi-
their chemical composition is a very interesting property for the ronment require peculiar physicochemical properties. Among
fabrication of MJSCs. In this regard, Lang et al.[19] studied the the potential candidates in this field, low-dimensional mate-
radiation tolerance of MHP/CIGS- and MHP/Si-based SCs to rials such as graphene and related 2D compounds represent a
protons with 68 MeV energy at a dose of 1012 particles cm−2. wide library of possibilities because of i) the tuneability of their
Remarkably, the MHP/CIGS-based SC retains ≈85% of its properties through functionalization, doping, and other strate-
initial PCE under AM0 illumination (Figure 9k) because of gies, ii) their lightweight, iii) the possibility to realize flexible
losses mainly due to the small reduction of VOC, while the other devices, and iv) the abundance, on Earth’s crust, of the raw
PV parameters remain almost constant (as shown in the inset materials typically used for their synthesis (C, W, Mo, S, etc.,).
of Figure 9k). Quite differently, the MHP/Si-based device Indeed, space agencies are already testing and proposing some
retains only 1% of the pristine PCE under AM0 conditions 2D materials-based technologies for space missions: ESA has
(Figure 9l), which has been associated to a drastic reduction of tested a graphene-based solar sail, reaching an acceleration of
JSC to only 2% of its initial value (inset of Figure 9l). Therefore, 1 m s−2 through illumination with a 1 W laser;[168] Orbex has
the results of this work demonstrate that MHP/CIGS-based designed a 3D printed two-stage rocket using carbon fibers and
MJSCs can become a promising technology for space applica- graphene composite materials;[169] SpaceX launched (1st April
tions because of the high resilience to radiation of both light 2022), on board of the Transporter 4 mission, graphene-based
harvesters, the resulting ultralightweight device (with a spe- devices with the aim to test (for the first time) the response of
cific power of 2.1 W g−1, higher than those of commonly used 2D materials-based technologies to the space environment.[170]
GaInP/GaAs/Ge 3JSC of ≈0.8 W g−1)[19] and the possibility to As concerns PVs, 2D materials have been also implemented
realize truly flexible and bendable arrays.[19] in some SCs for low TRL terrestrial applications.[46,150,171–174]
In addition to the laboratory-based experiments, there are a few Specifically, 2D materials such as graphene, transition metal
attempts to track the behavior of PSCs in real space environment dichalcogenides (TMDCs, e.g., MoS2, WS2, etc.) and transi-
to evaluate the full set of environmental parameters through tion metal carbides, nitrides, and carbonitrides (MXenes, for
space flight experiments.[165–167] As the first reported flight experi- example Ti3C2Tx) have been proposed as transparent conduc-
ment, Cardinaletti et al.[165] tested MAPbI3-based PSCs with active tive electrodes, counter electrodes, charge transport layers, and
area of 0.134 cm2 in an altitude of 32 km by using a stratospheric interlayers thanks to their outstanding optoelectronic, chem-
balloon and the perovskite film survived during 3 h of strato- ical, and mechanical properties.[172,173,175] This low TRL research
spheric flight. In another stratospheric test activity, Zhu and co- effort is particularly developed in III-generation PV,[46] where
workers[166] tested the mixed-cation PSCs with active an area of the use of 2D materials represents a valid and effective strategy
1.00 cm2 at an altitude of 35 km. The mixed-cation perovskite for interface tuning. State-of-art PSCs are nowadays fabricated
cell could retain >95% of its initial PCE during the 2 h test under by using a 2D perovskite layer on top of a bulk (3D) perovskite
AM0 illumination. Following these investigations, Reb et al.[167] absorber.[176] Such 3D/2D heterostructures strategy is not lim-
also evaluated the performance of the PSCs against space envi- ited to PSCs, in fact an NREL team has recently demonstrated
ronment through a rocket flight, which reached in 239 km alti- that this is a general concept that can be efficiently considered
tude and the PV performance of the cell was tracked in a 6 min for several thin film PV such as CdTe and CIGS.[177]

Figure 9. a) Schematic illustration of planar regular n–i–p and planar inverted p–i–n perovskite solar cells. b) Comparison of the J–V curves of a p–i–n
PSCs before and after irradiation tests with γ-ray at doses up to 23 000 Gy. c) Transmittance spectra of ITO/glass before and after γ-ray irradiation. ΔT
represents the loss in transmittance due to irradiation. Reproduced with permission.[31] Copyright 2018, Wiley. d) J–V curves of PSCs under reference
(red lines) and irradiation with 1 MeV electrons at fluences of 1.3 × 1013 particles cm−2 (blue lines) and 1 × 1015 particles cm−2 (green lines). Variation
of PV parameters: e) JSC, f) VOC, and g) FF for devices under control and low and high e-beam irradiation conditions. Adapted with permission.[33]
Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society. h) Variation of the normalized PV parameters as a function of the accumulated proton dose: JSC (red
dots), VOC (blue diamonds), FF (black triangles), and PCE (open purple dots, referred as η) for PSCs. The red rhomb represents the PCE achieved
when losses due to the glass/ITO substrate are taken into account. The blue line is the JSC of a reference Si photodiode. Reproduced with permis-
sion.[43] Copyright 2016, Wiley. i) Normalized variation (with respect to measurements conducted under no proton irradiation) of the PV parameters
JSC, VOC, FF, and PCE (η in the figure) for a PSC under irradiation with protons with energies of 20 (blue line) and 68 (red line) MeV functions of the
accumulated proton dose. j) Comparisons of the PV parameters of PSCs before and after irradiation with protons with energies of 20 (blue line) and
68 (red line) MeV and accumulated dose of 1012 particles cm−2. Reproduced with permission.[32] Copyright 2019, Royal Society of Chemistry. k–l) J–V
curves of reference (solid lines) and 68 MeV proton irradiation at accumulated dose of 1012 particles cm−2 (dashed lines) for (g) an MHP/CIGS-based
SC and (h) an MHP/Si-based SC. The insets show the remaining factors of the PV parameters (JSC, VOC, FF, and PCE (indicated as η)). Reproduced
with permission.[19] Copyright 2020, Elsevier.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (17 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Table 6. Summary of the resistance to radiation of MJSCs, Si-based SCs, CIGS-based SCs, and PSCs.

Solar cell technologies Energy Dose [particles cm−2] PCEinitial [%] PCEfinal [%] Refs.
Multijunction
AlInGaP/AlInGaAs/InGaAs/Ge 1 MeV (electron) 1015 31.8 28.7 [14]
commercially available at AZUR SPACE 1016 20.1
InGaP/GaAs/Ge 1 MeV (electron) 1015 29.8 26.8 [14]
commercially available at AZUR SPACE
InGaP/GaAs/Ge 1 MeV (electron) 1016 32.2 23.1 [15]
commercially available at SPECTROLAB
InGaP/GaAs/Ge 1 MeV (electron) 1016 30.7 21.5 [15]
commercially available at SPECTROLAB
InGaP/GaAs/Ge 1 MeV (electron) 1014 29 28.2 [17]
commercially available at CESI 1015 24.4
1 MeV (proton) 1011 25.9
InGaP/GaAs/Ge 1 MeV (electron) 1014 28 26.7 [17]
commercially available at CESI 1015 23.7
1 MeV (proton) 1011 24.2
Silicon
Si 1 MeV (electron) 1015 16.9 12.5 [14]
commercially available at AZUR SPACE 3 × 1015 10.8
Cu(In,Ga)Se2
CIGS 3 MeV (electron) 1018 15.5 3.1 [39]
4 MeV (proton) 1014 7.75
Perovskite
MA0.7FA0.3PbI3 1 MeV (electron) 1015 19.2 3.4 [33]
MAPbI3 68 MeV (proton) 1013 12.1 4.84 [184]
Cs0.05MA0.17FA0.83Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 68 MeV (proton) 1012 18.8 17.86 [185]
CIGS//Cs0.05(MA0.17FA0.83)0.95Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 68 MeV (proton) 2 × 1012 18.0 14.9 [19]
Si//Cs0.05(MA0.17FA0.83)0.95Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 68 MeV (proton) 2× 1012 21.1 0.18 [19]

A strong effort has been devoted to the use of 2D materials of γ-rays, protons and electrons. The authors demonstrated
as TCEs in particular graphene and MXenes. This effort has that, after the irradiation with proton and electron doses of,
been motivated by the urgent request to find valid alternatives respectively, 1012 and 1016 particles cm−2 (which are equivalent
to indium (critical raw material) commonly used in the fab- to those accumulated after 103 years of exposure at 500 km alti-
rication on indium tin oxide TCE. This development will not tude), the devices did not experience any significant changes in
only impact photovoltaics but also other devices such as LEDs, their performances (assuming an Al shield of 1.85 nm of thick-
where strong progresses have been made in the use of 2D ness). Recently, Zhang et al.[182] studied the radiation resist-
materials-based TCE.[178] Moreover, the development of TCE at ance of single- and multilayer MoS2 FETs under another type
industrial level is now considered, and scalable production have of common irradiation source in space environment, i.e., He
been already demonstrated.[179] ions. By using 2 MeV He+ irradiation it was found that single-
Concomitantly, 2D materials have been tested (on Earth) in layer MoS2 devices showed significant degradation with fluence
space-relevant conditions as components of electronic devices of 1011 particles cm−2. In comparison, multilayer MoS2 FETs tol-
such as transistors, sensors, etc. Surprisingly, despite the erated a fluence of an order of magnitude superior to that of
reduced thickness, 2D materials exhibit excellent resistance single-layer FETs (about 3 × 1012 particles cm−2), corresponding
under bombardment with high energetic particles (including to decades of operation and exposure in the space environment.
electrons, protons and γ-rays). For example, Kim et al.[180] Arnold et al.[183] demonstrated that a MoS2 thin layer has an
studied the changes of the I–V curves of a MoS2-based FET excellent radiation resistance under 2 MeV proton irradiation
under 10 MeV proton irradiation. The authors observed that with fluences ≈1016 particles cm−2, corresponding to hundreds
under a fluence of 1012 particles cm−2, the electrical perfor- of years of exposure. These radiation tests indicate that devices
mance of the device remained unchanged, while for fluences as based on 2D materials can withstand radiation fluences higher
high as 1014 particles cm−2 a dramatic drop of the source–drain than those required in low earth orbits. Thus, since 2D mate-
current is observed. Vogl et al.[181] investigated the electrical rials show a high potential for both PV and radiation-resistant
properties of MoS2 and WS2 FETs and of single photon sources materials, we believe that 2D materials-based SCs will be a
based on hexagonal boron nitride subjected to the irradiation likely future technology for space applications.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (18 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

7. Discussion and Conclusion Acknowledgements

R.V. and V.R. contributed equally to this work. R.V. acknowledges
SCs are the most used option to provide electrical power for
funding from Dottorati FSE XX X VI ciclo Unime, CIP 2014.IT.05.SFOP.
space missions that usually last several years. Currently, III–V 014/3/10.5/9.2.10/0002 CUP G47C20000190002. V.R. thanks funding
multijunction SCs are the state of the art of PV devices for from PRIN 2017 MULTI-e ID# 20179337R7. N.Y.N. acknowledges the
space applications because of the highest PCE and radiation Ministry of University and Research (MUR) for PON/FSE-REACT EU
resistance compared to the other PV technologies (Table 6). support, N.Y.N. and A.D.C. acknowledge support from European
Despite these appealing features, such devices suffer from the Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant
Agreement No. 101006715 (VIPERLAB). R.V., G.B., and C.C. acknowledge
drawbacks of complex and expensive fabrication processes.
financial support by the Ministry of Research and University in the
Today, following the privatization of space missions, there framework of Close to the Earth – CLOSE (No. ARS01_00141) and New
is a great demand for cheaper PV technologies. In particular, Satellite Generation Components – NSG (No. ARS01_01215) projects.
Si-based SCs are used for low power and short duration mis- Open Access Funding provided by Universita degli Studi di Messina
sion because of a good compromise between performances and within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
production costs. Moreover, with the aim to reduce fabrication
and maintenance costs while satisfying the requirements of
lightweight and flexibility (thus paving the way to the manu- Conflict of Interest
facturing of flexible solar arrays), alternative PV technologies
have been investigated. Actually, the focus of the academic The authors declare no conflict of interest.
and industrial research is on the cost reduction of SCs and, of
course, solar arrays. A cost reduction has been already achieved
with the introduction of the high-efficiency (PCE = 30%) SCs Keywords
on rigid panel arrays. Attempts to further reduce the cost are in
photovoltaic technology architectures, radiation hardness, solar cells,
progress to use large area SCs obtained using 6 in. wafers. The
space environment
current trend is toward flexible solar arrays with high power,
mainly for telecommunication satellites, which can play a very Received: January 13, 2022
important role in the development of big market sectors driven Revised: May 9, 2022
by megaconstellation programs and telecommunication satel- Published online: June 22, 2022
lites. Another important issue is the high radiation resistance
required to the solar arrays. Before defining the new trend of
the current market now it needs to develop the building block,
this because any technological advance originates a cost impact. [1] L. Greco, UCS Satellite Database, https://www.ucsusa.org/
Thus, it could be useful to find a right compromise between resources/satellite-database (accessed: May 2022).
the possible improvements of the technology and what can be [2] A. Datas, A. Martí, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2017, 161, 285.
[3] R. Surampudi, J. Blosiu, P. Stella, J. Elliott, J. Castillo, T. Yi,
commercially available. To this end was defined the European
J. Lyons, M. Piszczor, J. Mcnatt, C. Taylor, S. Liu, E. Plichta,
road map on short, mid, and long term development of novel P. M. Beauchamp, J. A. Cutts, Strategic Mission and Advanced Con-
solar cells cost effective.[87] For the years 2014/2015 the road cepts of NASA, NASA, Washington, DC 2017.
map planned the optimization of triple-junction solar cells even [4] J. Bisquert, The Physics of Solar Energy Conversion: Perovskites, Organics,
on large area wafers manufacturing. The updated roadmap and Photovoltaic Fundamentals, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 2020.
envisages the development of new multijunction solar cells [5] R. Hoheisel, D. Wilt, D. Scheiman, P. Jenkins, R. Walters, in 2014
with efficiency up to 32% within 2021 and further technological IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (PVSC 2014), Institute of
developments (i.e., lattice mismatched structures) with higher Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc, Piscataway, NJ 2014,
efficiencies even at expenses of a little higher cost, in mid and pp. 1811–1814.
long term. [6] A. F. Hepp, J. S. McNatt, S. G. Bailey, R. P. Raffaelle, B. J. Landi,
S.-S. Sun, C. E. Bonner, K. K. Banger, D. Rauh, IEEE Aerosp. Elec-
Regarding the materials to be used for solar cells, an impor-
tron. Syst. Mag. 2008, 23, 31.
tant aspect has to be pointed out, that is the need to comply [7] International Space Station, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/
with current regulation EU REACH (Registration, Evaluation, structure/elements/solar_arrays-about.html (accessed: May 2022).
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals),[186] that identifies [8] L. Summerer, K. Stephenson, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part G 2011,
materials that can be used and materials subject to restrictions. 225, 129.
Moreover, such European Regulation defines also the require- [9] A. Boca, C. A. Macfarland, R. S. Kowalczyk, AIAA Propuls. Energy
ments to be achieved for developing competitive technologies. Forum Expo. 2019, 2019, 3.
It is worth considering even on the solar cell market that is [10] D. E. Brownlee, P. Tsou, J. D. Anderson, M. S. Hanner,
relatively small, in the order of less than 1 MW per year, while R. L. Newburn, Z. Sekanina, B. C. Clark, F. Hörz, M. E. Zolensky,
the cost of the industry infrastructure is very high. Thus, the J. Kissel, J. A. M. McDonnell, S. A. Sandford, A. J. Tuzzolino,
J. Geophys. Res. 2003, 108, 8111.
development of competitive technologies for producing solar
[11] P. M. Stella, S. Distefano, M. D. Rayman, A. Ulloa-Severino, 2009
cells and solar arrays at the state-of-the art and beyond requires 34th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Philadelphia,
substantial funding. As for the solar arrays the market trends PA, USA, June 2009, pp. 001617–001621.
push in the direction of flexible arrays, which are a goal to be [12] NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
achieved with a great effort by industry and research commu- https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/juno/pdf/juno-hires.
nity through appropriate R&D common program. pdf (accessed: June 2022).

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (19 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

[13] G. D’Accolti, G. Beltrame, L. Brambilla, R. Contini, E. Ferrando, [41] S. Kawakita, M. Imaizumi, T. Sumita, K. Kushiya, T. Ohshima,
L. Vallini, R. Mugnuolo, C. Signorini, A. Caon, H. Fiebrich, European M. Yamaguchi, S. Matsuda, S. Yoda, T. Kamiya, 3rd World Conf.
Space Agency (Special Publication on ESA SP), Vol. 502, 2002, p. 445. on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003 Proc., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ
[14] Azur Space Solar Power, www.azurspace.com/index.php/en/ 2003, pp. 693–696.
(accessed: May 2022). [42] J. Yang, Q. Bao, L. Shen, L. Ding, Nano Energy 2020, 76, 105019.
[15] Spectrolab, www.spectrolab.com/index.html (accessed: May 2022). [43] F. Lang, N. H. Nickel, J. Bundesmann, S. Seidel, A. Denker,
[16] SolAero Technologies, Inc., https://solaerotech.com/ (accessed: S. Albrecht, V. V. Brus, J. Rappich, B. Rech, G. Landi, H. C. Neitzert,
May 2022). Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 8726.
[17] Space Solar Cells | CESI, https://www.cesi.it/space-solar-cells/ [44] C. Jiang, S. J. A. Moniz, A. Wang, T. Zhang, J. Tang, Chem. Soc. Rev.
(accessed: May 2022). 2017, 46, 4645.
[18] M. Kaltenbrunner, G. Adam, E. D. Głowacki, M. Drack, [45] S. Kahmann, M. A. Loi, J. Mater. Chem. C 2019, 7, 2471.
R. Schwödiauer, L. Leonat, D. H. Apaydin, H. Groiss, [46] S. Bellani, A. Bartolotta, A. Agresti, G. Calogero, G. Grancini,
M. C. Scharber, M. S. White, N. S. Sariciftci, S. Bauer, Nat. Mater. A. Di Carlo, E. Kymakis, F. Bonaccorso, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2021, 50, 11870.
2015, 14, 1032. [47] M. A. Green, A. Ho-Baillie, H. J. Snaith, Nat. Photonics 2014, 8, 506.
[19] F. Lang, M. Jošt, K. Frohna, E. Köhnen, A. Al-Ashouri, [48] M. Ledinsky, T. Schönfeldová, J. Holovský, E. Aydin, Z. Hájková,
A. R. Bowman, T. Bertram, A. B. Morales-Vilches, D. Koushik, L. Landová, N. Neyková, A. Fejfar, S. De Wolf, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
E. M. Tennyson, K. Galkowski, G. Landi, M. Creatore, 2019, 10, 1368.
B. Stannowski, C. A. Kaufmann, J. Bundesmann, J. Rappich, [49] T. M. Brenner, D. A. Egger, L. Kronik, G. Hodes, D. Cahen, Nat.
B. Rech, A. Denker, S. Albrecht, H. C. Neitzert, N. H. Nickel, Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 15007.
S. D. Stranks, Joule 2020, 4, 1054. [50] S. Irvine, in Handbook of Electronic and Photonic Materials (Eds:
[20] D. Cardwell, A. Kirk, C. Stender, A. Wibowo, F. Tuminello, S. Kasap, P. Capper), Springer, Berlin 2017, pp. 1097–1110.
M. Drees, R. Chan, M. Osowski, N. Pan, 2017 IEEE 44th Photo- [51] S. M. Sze, M.-K. Lee, Semiconductor Devices: Physics and Tech-
voltaic Specialists Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ 2017, pp. 3511–3513. nology, Wiley, New York 2012.
[21] J. Li, A. Aierken, Y. Liu, Y. Zhuang, X. Yang, J. H. Mo, R. K. Fan, [52] P. A. Iles, Sol. Cells 1982, 7, 79.
Q. Y. Chen, S. Y. Zhang, Y. M. Huang, Front. Phys. 2021, 8, 631925. [53] S. De Wolf, J. Holovsky, S. J. Moon, P. Löper, B. Niesen,
[22] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Best research-cell efficiencies, M. Ledinsky, F. J. Haug, J. H. Yum, C. Ballif, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html (accessed: May 2022). 2014, 5, 1035.
[23] Starlink, https://www.starlink.com/ (accessed: May 2022). [54] C. Gutsche, R. Niepelt, M. Gnauck, A. Lysov, W. Prost, C. Ronning,
[24] H. Afshari, B. K. Durant, C. R. Brown, K. Hossain, D. Poplavskyy, F. J. Tegude, Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 1453.
B. Rout, I. R. Sellers, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2020, 212, 110571. [55] T. Yao, X. An, H. Han, J. Q. Chen, C. Li, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018,
[25] A. Jasenek, U. Rau, K. Weinert, H. W. Schock, J. H. Werner, 3rd 8, 1800210.
World Conf. on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003 Proc., IEEE, [56] G. Brown, V. Faifer, A. Pudov, S. Anikeev, E. Bykov, M. Contreras,
Piscataway, NJ 2003, pp. 593–598. J. Wu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 96, 022104.
[26] K. Otte, L. Makhova, A. Braun, I. Konovalov, Thin Solid Films 2006, [57] T. Kirchartz, U. Rau, J. Appl. Phys. 2007, 102, 104510.
511–512, 613. [58] E. Belas, Š. Uxa, R. Grill, P. Hlídek, L. Šedivý, M. Bugár, J. Appl.
[27] Y. Tu, J. Wu, G. Xu, X. Yang, R. Cai, Q. Gong, R. Zhu, W. Huang, Phys. 2014, 116, 103521.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2006545. [59] L. Tarricone, N. Romeo, G. Sberveglieri, S. Mora, Sol. Energy
[28] W. Xiao, J. Yang, S. Xiong, D. Li, Y. Li, J. Tang, C. Duan, Q. Bao, Mater. 1982, 7, 343.
Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 2070032. [60] J. S. Cheong, A. Baharuddin, J. S. Ng, A. B. Krysa, J. P. R. David,
[29] M. Saliba, J. P. Correa-Baena, C. M. Wolff, M. Stolterfoht, N. Phung, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2017, 164, 28.
S. Albrecht, D. Neher, A. Abate, Chem. Mater. 2018, 30, 4193. [61] F. J. Schultes, T. Christian, R. Jones-Albertus, E. Pickett, K. Alberi,
[30] M. Saliba, J. P. Correa-Baena, M. Grätzel, A. Hagfeldt, A. Abate, B. Fluegel, T. Liu, P. Misra, A. Sukiasyan, H. Yuen, N. M. Haegel,
Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 2554. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 103, 242106.
[31] S. Yang, Z. Xu, S. Xue, P. Kandlakunta, L. Cao, J. Huang, Adv. [62] N. M. Haegel, T. Christian, C. Scandrett, A. G. Norman,
Mater. 2019, 31, 1805547. A. Mascarenhas, P. Misra, T. Liu, A. Sukiasyan, E. Pickett, H. Yuen,
[32] F. Lang, M. Jošt, J. Bundesmann, A. Denker, S. Albrecht, G. Landi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105, 202116.
H. C. Neitzert, J. Rappich, N. H. Nickel, Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, [63] D. Benmoussa, M. Boukais, H. Benslimane, J. Nano- Electron.
12, 1634. Phys. 2016, 8, 01009.
[33] Z. Song, C. Li, C. Chen, J. McNatt, W. Yoon, D. Scheiman, [64] G. Xing, N. Mathews, S. Sun, S. S. Lim, Y. M. Lam, M. Grat�zel,
P. P. Jenkins, R. J. Ellingson, M. J. Heben, Y. Yan, J. Phys. Chem. C S. Mhaisalkar, T. C. Sum, Science 2013, 342, 344.
2020, 124, 1330. [65] M. Fox, Optical Properties of Solids, OUP, Oxford 2002.
[34] M. Yamaguchi, K. H. Lee, K. Araki, N. Kojima, Y. Okuno, [66] L. M. Herz, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2016, 67, 65.
M. Imaizumi, Prog. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 2021, 29, 98. [67] K. Jäger, O. Isabella, A. Smets, R. van Swaaij, M. Zeman, Solar
[35] M. Yamaguchi, S. J. Taylor, S. Matsuda, O. Kawasaki, Appl. Phys. Energy: Fundamentals, Technology, and Systems, UIT Cambridge
Lett. 1996, 68, 3141. Ltd, Cambridge 2016.
[36] M. Yamaguchi, S. J. Taylor, M. Yang, S. Matsuda, O. Kawasaki, [68] Unconventional Thin Film Photovoltaics (Eds: E. Da Como,
T. Hisamatsu, J. Appl. Phys. 1996, 80, 4916. F. De Angelis, H. Snaith, A. Walker), Royal Society of Chemistry,
[37] P. R. Sharps, D. J. Aiken, M. A. Stan, C. H. Thang, N. Fatemi, Prog. London 2016.
Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 2002, 10, 383. [69] M. A. Parker, Physics of Optoelectronics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
[38] J. Li, A. Aierken, Y. Zhuang, P. Q. Xu, H. Q. Wu, Q. Y. Zhang, 2005.
X. B. Wang, J. H. Mo, X. Yang, Q. Y. Chen, S. Y. Zhang, C. R. Yan, [70] W. Shockley, H. J. Queisser, J. Appl. Phys. 1961, 32, 510.
Y. Song, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2021, 224, 111022. [71] J. R. Woodyard, G. A. Landis, Sol. Cells 1991, 31, 297.
[39] A. Jasenek, U. Rau, J. Appl. Phys. 2001, 90, 650. [72] R. Schmalensee, V. Bulovic, R. Armstrong, C. Batlle, P. Brown,
[40] S. Kawakita, M. Imaizumi, M. Yamaguchi, K. Kushiya, T. Ohshima, J. Deutch, H. Jacoby, R. Jaffe, J. Jean, R. Miller, F. O'Sullivan,
H. Itoh, S. Matsuda, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 41, L797. J. Parsons, J. I. Pérez-Arriaga, N. Seifkar, R. Stoner, C. Vergara,

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (20 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

in The Future of Solar Energy: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Eur. Space Res. and Technol. Center, Noordwijk, Netherlands 1996,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2015, Ch. 2. pp. 15–22.
[73] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Champion module efficiencies, [101] T. W. Armstrong, B. L. Colborn, Radiat. Meas. 2001, 33, 229.
www.nrel.gov/pv/module-efficiency.html (accessed: May 2022). [102] T. A. Schneiderl, J. A. Vaughnl, K. H. WrightJr., B. S. Phillips, IEEE
[74] J. P. Correa-Baena, M. Saliba, T. Buonassisi, M. Grätzel, A. Abate, 42nd Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ 2015,
W. Tress, A. Hagfeldt, Science 2017, 358, 739. pp. 1–6.
[75] S. Han, H. Zhang, R. Wang, Q. He, Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. [103] A. A. Phoenix, E. Wilson, J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl. 2018, 10, 051020.
2021, 127, 105666. [104] B. A. Banks, S. K. Miller, K. K. De Groh, Collection of Technical
[76] B. G. Krishna, G. S. Rathore, N. Shukla, S. Tiwari, Hybrid Perovskite Papers – 2nd Int. Energy Conversion Engineering Conf., Vol. 2, 2004,
Compos. Mater. 2021, 375. p. 978.
[77] T. Leijtens, K. Bush, R. Cheacharoen, R. Beal, A. Bowring, [105] E. Miyazaki, M. Tagawa, K. Yokota, R. Yokota, Y. Kimoto,
M. D. McGehee, J. Mater. Chem. A 2017, 5, 11483. J. Ishizawa, Acta Astronaut. 2010, 66, 922.
[78] J. A. Luceño-Sánchez, A. M. Díez-Pascual, R. P. Capilla, Int. J. Mol. [106] B. A. Banks, M. J. Mirtich, S. K. Rutledge, D. M. Swec, H. K. Nahra,
Sci. 2019, 20. AlAA 23rd Aerospace Science Meet. 1985, 1985, p. 420.
[79] McEvoy’s Handbook of Photovoltaics (Ed: S. Kalogirou), Elsevier, [107] C. R. Phipps, K. L. Baker, S. B. Libby, D. A. Liedahl, S. S. Olivier,
Amsterdam 2018. L. D. Pleasance, A. Rubenchik, J. E. Trebes, E. V. George,
[80] F. Haase, C. Hollemann, S. Schäfer, A. Merkle, M. Rienäcker, B. Marcovici, J. P. Reilly, M. T. Valley, Adv. Space Res. 2012, 49, 1283.
J. Krügener, R. Brendel, R. Peibst, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, [108] C. P. Mark, S. Kamath, Space Policy 2019, 47, 194.
186, 184. [109] B. Hoang, S. White, B. Spence, S. Kiefer, 2016 IEEE Aerospace
[81] K. Yoshikawa, H. Kawasaki, W. Yoshida, T. Irie, K. Konishi, Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ 2016, pp. 1–12.
K. Nakano, T. Uto, D. Adachi, M. Kanematsu, H. Uzu, [110] About the Space Station Solar Arrays | NASA, https://www.nasa.
K. Yamamoto, Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 17032. gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/solar_arrays-
[82] M. Nakamura, K. Yamaguchi, Y. Kimoto, Y. Yasaki, T. Kato, about.html (accessed: May 2022).
H. Sugimoto, IEEE J. Photovoltaics 2019, 9, 1863. [111] New Solar Arrays to Power NASA’s International Space Station
[83] R. Carron, S. Nishiwaki, T. Feurer, R. Hertwig, E. Avancini, Research | NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-solar-arrays-
J. Löckinger, S.-C. Yang, S. Buecheler, A. N. Tiwari, Adv. Energy to-power-nasa-s-international-space-station-research (accessed:
Mater. 2019, 9, 1900408. May 2022).
[84] M. Jeong, I. W. Choi, E. M. Go, Y. Cho, M. Kim, B. Lee, S. Jeong, [112] H. Jones, 48th Int. Conf. on Environmental Systems, Albuquerque,
Y. Jo, H. W. Choi, J. Lee, Science 2020, 369, 1615. New Mexico 2018.
[85] C. Long, K. Huang, J. Chang, C. Zuo, Y. Gao, X. Luo, B. Liu, H. Xie, [113] Aerospace Security, https://aerospace.csis.org/data/space-launch-
Z. Chen, J. He, H. Huang, Y. Gao, L. Ding, J. Yang, Small 2021, 17, to-low-earth-orbit-how-much-does-it-cost/ (accessed: May 2022).
2102368. [114] S. G. Bailey, R. Raffaelle, K. Emery, Prog. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 2002,
[86] K. Sasaki, T. Agui, K. Nakaido, N. Takahashi, R. Onitsuka, 10, 399.
T. Takamoto, AIP Conf. Proc. 2013, 1556, 22. [115] D. H. Walker, Results of the Solar Cell Experiments on the NTS-2
[87] ESA/IPC/THAG(2021)4, “Solar Generators and Solar Cells”, issue 5. Satellite After 223 Days in Orbit, 1978.
[88] K. L. Bedingfield, R. D. Leach, M. B. Alexander, National Aero- [116] M. R. Brown, L. J. Goldhammer, G. S. Goodelle,
nautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, C. U. Lortz, J. N. Perron, J. S. Powe, J. A. Schwartz, B. T. Cavicchi,
Huntsville, AL, USA 1996, p. 1390. M. S. Gillanders, D. D. Krut, Conf. Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic
[89] J. L. Barth, European Space Agency (Special Publication on ESA SP), Specialists Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ 1997, pp. 805–810.
Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 2003, pp. 7–29. [117] S. P. Philipps, A. W. Bett, Adv. Opt. Technol. 2014, 3, 469.
[90] G. Bonin, N. Orr, R. E. Zee, J. Cain, 24th Annual Conf. on Small Sat- [118] S. Ku, R. R. King, K. M. Edmondson, D. J. Friedman, N. H. Karam,
ellites, Vol. 9012, AIAA, Logan, UT, USA 2010. Conf. on the Record of the Twenty-Ninth IEEE Photovoltaic Special-
[91] V. L. Pisacane, The Space Environment and Its Effects on Space Systems, ists, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ 2002, pp. 1006–1009.
American Institute of Aeronautics And Astronautics, Reston, VA 2008. [119] V. Polojärvi, A. Aho, A. Tukiainen, M. Raappana, T. Aho,
[92] Y. Lu, Q. Shao, H. Yue, F. Yang, IEEE Access 2019, 7, 93473. A. Schramm, M. Guina, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016, 149, 213.
[93] K. Torkar, R. Nakamura, M. Tajmar, C. Scharlemann, H. Jeszenszky, [120] V. Sabnis, H. Yuen, M. Wiemer, AIP Conf. Proc. 2012, 1477, 14.
G. Laky, G. Fremuth, C. P. Escoubet, K. Svenes, Space Sci. Rev. [121] D. J. Friedman, S. R. Kurtz, Prog. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 2002, 10, 331.
2016, 199, 515. [122] K. Volz, D. Lackner, I. Németh, B. Kunert, W. Stolz, C. Baur,
[94] W. Riedler, K. Torkar, F. Rüdenauer, M. Fehringer, A. Pedersen, F. Dimroth, A. W. Bett, J. Cryst. Growth 2008, 310, 2222.
R. Schmidt, R. J. L. Grard, H. Arends, B. T. Narheim, J. Troim, [123] J. E. Ruiz, D. Lackner, P. L. Souza, F. Dimroth, J. Ohlmann, J. Cryst.
R. Torbert, R. C. Olsen, E. Whipple, R. Goldstein, N. Valavanoglou, Growth 2021, 557, 125998.
H. Zhao, Space Sci. Rev. 1997, 79, 271. [124] A. Aho, V. M. Korpijärvi, A. Tukiainen, J. Puustinen, M. Guina, J.
[95] D. J. Wrbanek, Y. S. Wrbanek, Space Radiation and Impact on Instru- Appl. Phys. 2014, 116, 213101.
mentation Technologies, 2020. [125] A. J. Ptak, S. Kurtz, S. W. Johnston, D. J. Friedman,
[96] G. F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, Wiley, Hoboken, J. F. Geisz, J. M. Olson, W. E. Mcmahon, A. E. Kibbler, C. Kramer,
New Jersey, USA 2010. M. Young, S.-H. Wei, S. B. Zhang, A. Janotti, P. Carrier,
[97] J. R. Tesmer, M. Nastasi, Handbook of Modern Ion Beam Analysis, R. S. Crandall, B. M. Keyes, P. Dippo, A. G. Norman, W. K. Metzger,
Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA 1995. R. K. Ahrenkiel, R. C. Reedy, L. Gedvilas, B. To, M. H. Weber,
[98] D. Mottl, R. Nymmik, Adv. Space Res. 2003, 32, 2349. K. G. Lynn, S. Kurtz, National Center for Photovoltaics Solar Progress
[99] R. Schwenn, in Encyclopedia of Astronomy & Astrophysics Review Meet., 2003, pp. 1–4.
(Ed: P. Murdin), Boca Raton, FL, USA, Ch. Solar Wind: Global [126] N. Miller, P. Patel, C. Struempel, AIP Conf. Proc. 2014, 1616, 50.
Properties 2000, p. 2301. [127] A. B. Cornfeld, D. Aiken, B. Cho, A. V. Ley, P. Sharps, M. Stan,
[100] E. J. Daly, G. Drolshagen, A. Hilgers, H. D. R. Evans, Space envi- T. Varghese, 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., IEEE,
ronment analysis: Experience and trends, in Proceedings of the Piscataway, NJ 2010, pp. 105–109.
ESA 1996 Symposium on Environment Modelling for Space- [128] D. Lackner, O. Höhn, A. W. Walker, M. Niemeyer, P. Beutel,
Based Applications, ESA SP-392, (Eds: W. Burke, T.-D. Guyenne), G. Siefer, M. Schachtner, V. Klinger, E. Oliva, K. Hillerich,

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (21 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

T. Kubera, W. Guter, A. W. Bett, F. Dimroth, E3S Web Conf. 2017, 16, [159] J.-S. Huang, M. D. Kelzenberg, P. Espinet-González, C. Mann,
03009. D. Walker, A. Naqavi, N. Vaidya, E. Warmann, H. A. Atwater, 2017
[129] S. P. Philipps, F. Dimroth, A. W. Bett, High-Efficiency III–V Multi- IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (PVSC), IEEE, Piscataway,
junction Solar Cells, Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam 2018. NJ 2017, 1248.
[130] N. H. Karam, C. M. Fetzer, X. Liu, M. A. Steiner, K. L. Schulte, in [160] J. Barbé, D. Hughes, Z. Wei, A. Pockett, H. K. H. Lee,
Metalorganic Vapor Phase Epitaxy (MOVPE): Growth, Materials K. C. Heasman, M. J. Carnie, T. M. Watson, W. C. Tsoi, Sol. RRL
Properties, and Applications (Eds: S. Irvine, P. Capper), John Wiley 2019, 3, 1900219.
and Sons Ltd, Hoboken, New Jersey, US 2019, Ch. 5. [161] Y. Miyazawa, M. Ikegami, H. W. Chen, T. Ohshima, M. Imaizumi,
[131] C. T. Pan, P. J. Cheng, M. F. Chen, C. K. Yen, Microelectron. Reliab. K. Hirose, T. Miyasaka, iScience 2018, 2, 148.
2005, 45, 657. [162] S. Kanaya, G. M. Kim, M. Ikegami, T. Miyasaka, K. Suzuki,
[132] S. J. Cunningham, M. Kupnik, MEMS Materials and Processes Y. Miyazawa, H. Toyota, K. Osonoe, T. Yamamoto, K. Hirose, J.
Handbook (Eds: R. Ghodssi, P. Lin), Springer, Berlin 2010, Ch. 11. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 10, 6990.
[133] U. Gösele, Q.-Y. Tong, Annual Review of Materials Science 1998, 28, [163] M. F. Bartusiak, J. Becher, Appl. Opt. 1979, 18, 3342.
215. [164] A. I. Gusarov, D. Doyle, A. Hermanne, F. Berghmans, M. Fruit,
[134] U. Gösele, Y. Bluhm, G. Kästner, P. Kopperschmidt, G. Kräuter, G. Ulbrich, M. Blondel, Appl. Opt. 2002, 41, 678.
R. Scholz, A. Schumacher, S. Senz, Q.-Y. Tong, L.-J. Huang, [165] I. Cardinaletti, T. Vangerven, S. Nagels, R. Cornelissen,
Y.-L. Chao, T. H. Lee, J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A 1999, 17, 1145. D. Schreurs, J. Hruby, J. Vodnik, D. Devisscher, J. Kesters,
[135] S. Essig, J. Benick, M. Schachtner, A. Wekkeli, M. Hermle, J. D’Haen, A. Franquet, V. Spampinato, T. Conard, W. Maes,
F. Dimroth, IEEE J. Photovoltaics 2015, 5, 977. W. Deferme, J. V. Manca, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 182, 121.
[136] W. Rong, L. Yunhong, S. Xufang, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., [166] Y. G. Tu, G. N. Xu, X. Y. Yang, Y. F. Zhang, Z. J. Li, R. Su, D. Y. Luo,
Sect. B 2008, 266, 745. W. Q. Yang, Y. Miao, R. Cai, L. H. Jiang, X. W. Du, Y. C. Yang,
[137] Y. Zhang, Y. Wu, H. Zhao, C. Sun, J. Xiao, H. Geng, J. Xue, J. Lu, Q. S. Liu, Y. Gao, S. Zhao, W. Huang, Q. H. Gong, R. Zhu, Sci.
Y. Wang, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016, 157, 861. China: Phys., Mech. Astron. 2019, 62, 974221.
[138] A. Aierken, L. Fang, M. Heini, Q. M. Zhang, Z. H. Li, X. F. Zhao, [167] L. K. Reb, M. Böhmer, B. Predeschly, S. Grott, C. L. Weindl,
M. Sailai, H. T. Liu, Q. Guo, W. Gao, H. Gao, Q. Sun, Sol. Energy G. I. Ivandekic, R. Guo, C. Dreißigacker, R. Gernhäuser, A. Meyer,
Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 185, 36. P. Müller-Buschbaum, Joule 2020, 4, 1880.
[139] J. J. Li, S. H. Lim, C. R. Allen, D. Ding, Y. H. Zhang, IEEE J. Photo- [168] Graphene sail in microgravity, https://www.esa.int/ESA_Mul-
voltaics 2011, 1, 225. timedia/Images/2020/05/Graphene_sail_in_microgravity
[140] S. H. Lim, J. J. Li, E. H. Steenbergen, Y. H. Zhang, Prog. Photovolt.: (accessed: May 2022).
Res. Appl. 2013, 21, 344. [169] Orbex, https://orbex.space/launch-vehicle (accessed: May 2022).
[141] A. Rehman, S. H. Lee, S. H. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 2016, 68, 593. [170] Rocket launch 1st April: sending graphene into space for the first
[142] F. Treble, Renewable Energy 1998, 15, 473. time, https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2022/tnw/rocket-launch-1st-april-
[143] T. Hisamatsu, O. Kawasaki, S. Matsuda, T. Nakao, Y. Wakow, Sol. sending-graphene-into-space-for-the-first-time (accessed: May 2022).
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 1998, 50, 331. [171] J. Zhang, J. Fan, B. Cheng, J. Yu, W. Ho, Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 2000502.
[144] J. Ramanujam, D. M. Bishop, T. K. Todorov, O. Gunawan, J. Rath, [172] P. You, G. Tang, F. Yan, Mater. Today Energy 2019, 11, 128.
R. Nekovei, E. Artegiani, A. Romeo, Prog. Mater. Sci. 2020, 110, [173] S. Das, D. Pandey, J. Thomas, T. Roy, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1802722.
100619. [174] A. Di Carlo, A. Agresti, F. Brunetti, S. Pescetelli, J. Phys. Energy
[145] J. Ramanujam, U. P. Singh, Energy Environ. Sci. 2017, 10, 1306. 2020, 2, 031003.
[146] N. Yaghoobi Nia, F. Giordano, M. Zendehdel, L. Cinà, A. L. Palma, [175] M. Acik, S. B. Darling, J. Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 6185.
P. G. Medaglia, S. M. Zakeeruddin, M. Grätzel, A. Di Carlo, Nano [176] Z. Li, B. Li, X. Wu, S. A. Sheppard, S. Zhang, D. Gao, N. J. Long,
Energy 2020, 69, 104441. Z. Zhu, Science 2022, 376, 416.
[147] P. Ru, E. Bi, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. Kong, Y. Sha, W. Tang, P. Zhang, [177] D. L. McGott, C. P. Muzzillo, C. L. Perkins, J. J. Berry, K. Zhu,
Y. Wu, W. Chen, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903487. J. N. Duenow, E. Colegrove, C. A. Wolden, M. O. Reese, Joule 2021,
[148] M. Zendehdel, N. Yaghoobi Nia, M. Yaghoubinia, Reliability and 5, 1057.
Ecological Aspects of Photovoltaic Modules, IntechOpen, London, [178] H. Zhang, J. Mischke, W. Mertin, G. Bacher, Materials 2022, 15, 2203.
UK 2020. [179] P. Mustonen, D. M. A. Mackenzie, H. Lipsanen, Front. Optoelec-
[149] X. Tian, S. D. Stranks, F. You, Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabb0055. tron. 2020, 13, 91.
[150] A. S. R. Bati, M. Batmunkh, J. G. Shapter, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, [180] T.-Y. Kim, K. Cho, W. Park, J. Park, Y. Song, S. Hong, W.-K. Hong,
10, 1902253. T. Lee, ACS Nano 2014, 8, 2774.
[151] K. Rakstys, C. Igci, M. Khaja Nazeeruddin, Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 6748. [181] T. Vogl, K. Sripathy, A. Sharma, P. Reddy, J. Sullivan,
[152] N. Yaghoobi Nia, D. Saranin, A. L. Palma, A. Di Carlo, Solar Cells J. R. Machacek, L. Zhang, F. Karouta, B. C. Buchler, M. W. Doherty,
and Light Management: Materials, Strategies and Sustainability, Y. Lu, P. K. Lam, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1202.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands 2020, pp. 163–228. [182] Y. Zhang, X. Chen, H. Wang, J. Dai, J. Xue, X. Guo, J. Phys. Chem.
[153] H. Zhu, K. Miyata, Y. Fu, J. Wang, P. P. Joshi, D. Niesner, C 2021, 125, 2089.
K. W. Williams, S. Jin, X. Y. Zhu, Science 2016, 353, 1409. [183] A. J. Arnold, T. Shi, I. Jovanovic, S. Das, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
[154] H. Seiler, S. Palato, C. Sonnichsen, H. Baker, E. Socie, 2019, 11, 8391.
D. P. Strandell, P. Kambhampati, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4962. [184] F. Lang, N. H. Nickel, J. Bundesmann, S. Seidel, A. Denker,
[155] K. Miyata, T. L. Atallah, X. Y. Zhu, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1701469. S. Albrecht, V. V Brus, J. Rappich, B. Rech, G. Landi, Adv. Mater.
[156] H. Wei, J. Huang, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1066. 2016, 28, 8726.
[157] A. G. Boldyreva, A. F. Akbulatov, S. A. Tsarev, S. Y. Luchkin, [185] F. Lang, M. Jošt, J. Bundesmann, A. Denker, S. Albrecht, G. Landi,
I. S. Zhidkov, E. Z. Kurmaev, K. J. Stevenson, V. G. Petrov, H.-C. Neitzert, J. Rappich, N. H. Nickel, Energy Environ. Sci. 2019,
P. A. Troshin, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 10, 813. 12, 1634.
[158] K. Yang, K. Huang, X. Li, S. Zheng, P. Hou, J. Wang, H. Guo, [186] REACH | Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs,
H. Song, B. Li, H. Li, B. Liu, X. Zhong, J. Yang, Org. Electron. 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach_en
71, 79. (accessed: May 2022).

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (22 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Rosaria Verduci received her master degree in Condensed Matter Physics from University of
Messina (Italy) in 2019. Currently, she is a Ph.D. student in Advanced Catalytic Processes for using
Renewable Energy Sources (ACCESS) at the Department of Chemical, Biological, Pharmaceutical
and Environmental Sciences at the University of Messina. Her main research interest focuses on
the study of charge transfer processes at the semiconductor/electrolyte interface for solar fuels
production.

Valentino Romano is currently a postdoc at the Physics Department of Politecnico di Milano,

working on ultrafast spectroscopies on materials for energy applications. He received his
Ph.D. in Physics in 2019 at the University of Messina, working on perovskite solar cells and the
production/processing of 2D materials (such as graphene and transition metal dichalcogenides)
for the realization of supercapacitors, solar cells, and photoelectrodes (for the production of H2
from water splitting). His interests concern solar-powered green technologies, such as photo-
voltaic devices and systems for solar fuels synthesis, with particular emphasis on the fundamental
physical processes behind their working mechanisms.

Giuseppe Brunetti received the M.Sc. degree in Electronic Engineering (cum laude) and the Ph.D.
degree in Information Engineering from Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy, in 2016 and 2020, respec-
tively. His Ph.D. activity was focused on innovative photonic and optoelectronic devices for Space
applications with European Space Agency (ESA) sponsorship in the framework of NPI project
(367-2014). Since December 2020, he has been an Assistant Professor with Politecnico di Bari. His
research interests include integrated optoelectronics and photonics devices and systems mainly
in the context of biomedical and Space field.

Narges Yaghoobi Nia received the Ph.D. in Electronics Engineering from University of Rome Tor
Vergata; currently she is working as assistant professor. She was awarded in 2014 a MARIE CURIE
Fellowship (Destiny FP7/2007–2013). Skilled in the field of emerging thin film PVs (perovskite
solar module, tandem solar module, laser, polymer). She was a member of Espresso, ENEA,
PRIN, Perseo project, and collaborator for ASI project. Now is contributing to the VIPERLAB pro-
ject. In 2022 awarded Global MARIE CURIE Fellowship on Perovskite Photovoltaics for space with
Prof. Schirone (Scuola di Ingegneria Aerospaziale Sapienza University) and Prof. Michael Graetzel
(EPFL University).

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (23 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 16146840, 2022, 29, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202200125 by University Of Science & Tech Beijin, Wiley Online Library on [08/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergymat.de

Aldo Di Carlo is head of the Institute for Structure of the Matter of the Italian National Research
Council (CNR-ISM) and full professor at the University of Rome “Tor Vergata” (Italy). He founded
the Centre for Hybrid and Organic Solar Energy (CHOSE) that involves more than 40 researchers
for the development and industrialization of the organic and hybrid organic/inorganic photo-
voltaic technologies. He is author/coauthor of more than 600 scientific publications on interna-
tional journals, 13 patents, and several book chapters.

Giovanna D’Angelo is full professor at the Physics Department of the University of Messina and
Director of the Criogenics Center (Messina University). Her research mainly involves the study
of the influence of vibrational and structural disorder on the physical properties of condensed
and soft materials. More recently her activity is devoted to the study of fundamental physics
processes influencing the charge transport in 2D materials, photovoltaic devises, and solar fuel
systems. She has coauthored more than 150 publications and review articles.

Caterina Ciminelli received the Laurea degree (1996) and the Ph.D. (2000) in electronic engi-
neering from Politecnico di Bari, Italy. From 1999 to 2002, she did industrial research activity on
optoelectronic components and subsystems with the R&D Division of Pirelli Optical Systems and
Cisco Photonics, Italy, before joining Politecnico di Bari as an Assistant Professor of Electronics
in 2002. From 2012 to 2021, she has been an associate professor. Since 2021, she has been a full
professor with Politecnico di Bari where she is the scientist responsible for the Optoelectronics
Laboratory. Her research interests include integrated optoelectronics and photonics.

Adv. Energy Mater. 2022, 12, 2200125 2200125 (24 of 24) © 2022 The Authors. Advanced Energy Materials published by Wiley-VCH GmbH