© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH

Supporting Information
for Adv. Energy Mater., DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202100875

Introduction of a Novel Figure of Merit for the

Assessment of Transparent Conductive Electrodes in
Photovoltaics: Exact and Approximate Form
Aman Anand, Md Moidul Islam, Rico Meitzner, Ulrich S.
Schubert, and Harald Hoppe*
Supplementary Information

Introduction of a Novel Figure of Merit for the Assessment of

Transparent Conductive Electrodes in Photovoltaics: Exact and

Approximate Form
†,‡ †,‡ †,‡ †,‡
Aman Anand , Md Moidul Islam , Rico Meitzner , Ulrich S. Schubert ,

and Harald Hoppe *,†,‡

† Laboratory of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller

University Jena, Humboldtstraße 10, 07743 Jena, Germany.

‡ Center for Energy and Environmental Chemistry Jena (CEEC Jena), Friedrich Schiller

University Jena, Philosophenweg 7a, 07743 Jena, Germany.

Corresponding author: Harald Hoppe: harald.hoppe@uni-jena.de

1
1. Schematic of solar module with geometric parameters

Scheme S1: Schematic of monolithic solar module with serial interconnection (a) top

view and (b) cross-section showing the current flow direction within the device and

geometric parameters (adapted from reference[1]).

2. Exact figure of merit derivation

The figure of merit is defined as:

, [ ]

(S1)
The power at the maximum power point (P MPP) can be calculated by using voltage (V) and

total current (I) and finding the maximum value of their product:

(S1)

The power conversion efficiency of the solar cells can be calculated using the power at the
maximum power point (PMPP) and the input power (Pin = 1000 W/cm2):

(S2)

2
The power loss within an ohmic resistance is proportional to the current squared passing
through it.[1] Therefore, it is defined as:

(S3)

To calculate the PMPP and PLoss, the current can be calculated using the self-consistent 1-diode

based on the implicit Shockley equation which is defined as: [1]

[ { }] (S4)

where I is the total current, ISC is the short circuit current, I0 is the dark saturation current, RS

is the series resistance, RP is the parallel resistance, TK is the temperature (300 Kelvin), kB is

the Boltzmann constant, q is the elementary charge and n is the diode ideality factor (n=1 for

ideal solar cell). The subsequent 1-diode equivalent circuit of a solar cell is shown in Figure

S1.

Figure S1: Equivalent circuit for solar cell based on 1-diode model.

3
Since the parallel resistance is not dependent on the sheet resistance of the electrodes, but

rather depends on the whole layer stack of the solar cell, the assumption of an ideal solar cell

results in an RP of infinity. Thus, the implicit Shockley equation for a besides of the sheet

resistance ideal solar cell can be written as:

[ { }] (S5)

As shown by Hoppe et al., the relationship between the series resistance (RS) and the sheet

resistance (R ) of electrodes can be calculated as:[1]

(S6)

where l is the length of the solar cell and w is the width of the solar cell. In this work, a 5 cm2

cell area (length = 0.5 cm and width = 10 cm) was chosen for the simulation. [1-3]

The short circuit current (ISC) and the dark saturation current (I0) can be calculated by using

the short circuit density (Jsc) and dark saturation current density (J0) and area (A).

(S7)

(S8)

(S9)

The short circuit density (Jsc) is generally related to the number of photons that cross the

transparent conducting electrodes used as transparent front contact in the solar cells. Thus, we

take the transmittance-induced deviation from the ideal box-shaped external quantum

efficiency of the solar cell into account. The short circuit density is therefore obtained as:

∫ (S10)

where q is the elementary charge, G is the wavelength corresponding to the bandgap of the

solar cell, T is the transmittance spectrum in the wavelength range of a selected group of solar

4
cells (Table 1) and Φsun, AM1.5G is the photon flux density at AM 1.5 global which was

extracted using spectral irradiance from NERL ASTM G173-03 [reference] and dividing the

irradiance at the given wavelength by the energy of the corresponding photon. Similarly, the

dark saturation current density (J0) can be obtained as:

∫ (S11)

where q is the elementary charge, G is the wavelength corresponding to the bandgap of the

solar cell, T is the transmittance spectrum in the wavelength range of a selected group of solar

cells (Table 1), and ΦBB,300K is the blackbody radiation photon flux density at 300 Kelvin.

According to Planck’s law of blackbody radiation, the spectral energy density as a function of

wavelength (λ) and temperature (TK) is given by:

(S12)
( )

where Bλ is the spectral irradiance, h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed of light, T K is the

temperature, kB is the Boltzmann constant, and λ is the wavelength. The blackbody radiation

photon flux density was calculated by dividing the blackbody radiation spectral energy

density at the given wavelength by the energy of the corresponding photon.

(S13)

5
3. Verification of exact figure of merit calculation

Shockley and Queisser calculated the photovoltaic energy conversion limit called Shockley–

Queisser (SQ) limit in the year 1961. [4] It has been one of the most important theoretical

contributions in the field of photovoltaics. The SQ limit of a single junction solar cell

illuminated by a black body with a surface temperature of 6000 K and a cell temperature of

300 K was calculated. The SQ limit was based on five assumptions – (1) only the photons

whose energy is greater than the bandgap energy will be absorbed, (2) photon energies greater

than the band gap energy generates one electron-hole pair, (3) thermal equilibration of the

electron system with the surrounding (4) solely radiative recombination is taking place, and

(5) contacts are perfectly selective and no ohmic losses within the solar cell. [4, 5]

Rühle calculated the maximum power conversion efficiency limit for the standard AM 1.5

global (AM 1.5G) spectrum which considers scattered light from the atmosphere and is

applicable for most PV systems without light concentration. [6] On the basis of his calculation

for AM 1.5G illumination, it was found that the maximum power conversion efficiency is

33.7% for a bandgap of 1.34 eV (928 nm) if emission from the rear side of the cell is perfectly

prevented by a perfect reflector. In his study, he demonstrated that solar cells with a bandgap

between 0.93 and 1.61 eV can yield power conversion efficiencies of more than 30%,

showing short current densities between 51.7 and 25.2 mA/cm2 and open-circuit voltages

between 0.69 and 1.31 V, where the latter are corresponding to 74 to 82% of the bandgap

potential. [6] To check our exact FOM reliability, we extracted the data using an online tool

web plot digitizer from Rühle’s power conversion efficiency graph for AM 1.5 G

illumination[6] and compared it with our calculated efficiency (Equation S3).

The calculated efficiency curve overlapps well with the SQL power conversion efficiency as

calculated by Rühle et al. (Figure S2), This indicates that the proposed calculation for the

6
figure of merit was formulated correctly. The proposed equations provide the correct short

circuit current, dark saturation current, total current, and power conversion efficiency for solar

cells as a function of the bandgap.

Note: The solar cell parameters (JSC, Jo, ISC, Io, VOC, and PMPP) were obtained by this

calculation.
Maximum Power Conversion Efficiency [%]

40
SQ Efficiency
35 Cal Efficiency

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Bandgap [eV]

Figure S2: Maximum power conversion efficiency vs. bandgap graph.

7
4. Assessment of established FOMs and an exact figure of merit

For the spectral range from 280 to 1100 nm, different established figures of merit (Fraser &

Cook, Haacke, Dressel & Grüner, Gamboa et al., Contreras et al.) and an exact figure of

merit was evaluated. The figure of merit graphs is plotted against sheet resistance of different

regimes (Figure S3 – S8).

Figure S9 (a – j) shows the figure of merit vs. sheet resistance graphs for different

transmittance values (a) 100%, (b) 90%, (c) 80%, (d) 70%, (e) 60%, (f) 50%, (g) 40%, (h)

30%, (i) 20%, and (j) 10% throughout the spectral range of 280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell

length of 5 mm.

Table S1 shows the critical value of sheet resistance for different transmittance values for the

exact figure of merit in the spectral range from 280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell length of 5

mm. The critical sheet resistance is defined as a value at which the exact figure of merit starts

to decrease. Thus, it is advisable to work within this limited range to produce efficient

electrodes.

Figure S10 is the inset figure of Figure 3 in the main manuscript. The figure shows the

critical value of sheet resistance for TCE having a transmittance of 90% throughout the

spectral range of 280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell length of 5 mm.

Figure S11 shows the comparison between exact FOM and Contreras et al. FOM having

different n values for TCE having a transmittance of 90% throughout the spectral range of

280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell length of 5 mm.

8
Figure S3: Fraser & Cook figure of merit graphs vs. sheet resistance.

9
Figure S4: Haacke figure of merit graphs vs. sheet resistance.

10
Figure S5: Dressel & Grüner figure of merit vs. sheet resistance.

11
Figure S6: Gamboa et al. figure of merit vs. sheet resistance.

12
Figure S7: Contreras et al. figure of merit vs. sheet resistance.

13
Figure S8: Exact figure of merit vs. sheet resistance.

14
 (a)
108
107 Fraser & Cook
Haacke
106 Dressel & Grüner
105 Gamboa et al.
Contreras et al.
Figure of Merit

104 Exact FOM

103
102
101
100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4 T = 100%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 1.25x102

10-1 100 101 102 103 104

Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(b)
105
Fraser & Cook
104 Haacke
Dressel & Grüner
103 Gamboa et al.
Contreras et al.
Figure of Merit

102 Exact FOM

101
100
10-1
10-2
10-3
-4
T = 90%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 1.4x102
10
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

Figure S9ab: FOM vs. R for spectral range (280 to 1100 nm), for T=100% (a) and 90% (b).

15
 (c)
105
Fraser & Cook
104 Haacke
Dressel & Grüner
103 Gamboa et al.
Contreras et al.
Figure of Merit

102 Exact FOM

101
100
10-1
10-2 1.55x102

10-3
T = 80%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm
10-4
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(d)
104 Fraser & Cook
Haacke
103 Dressel & Grüner
2 Gamboa et al.
10 Contreras et al.
Figure of Merit

1
10 Exact FOM

100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
T = 70%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 1.78x102
-6
10
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]
Figure S9cd: FOM vs. R for spectral range (280 to 1100 nm), for T=80% (c) and 70% (d).

16
 (e)
104 Fraser & Cook
103 Haacke
Dressel & Grüner
102 Gamboa et al.
Contreras et al.
Figure of Merit

101 Exact FOM

100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6 T = 60%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 2.07x102

10-1 100 101 102 103 104

Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(f)
104 Fraser & Cook
103 Haacke
Dressel & Grüner
102 Gamboa et al.
101 Contreras et al.
Figure of Merit

Exact FOM
100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7 T = 50%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 2.5x102

10-1 100 101 102 103 104

Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]
Figure S9ef: FOM vs. R for spectral range (280 to 1100 nm), for T=60% (e) and 50% (f).
17
 (g)

Fraser & Cook

103 Haacke × 104
Dressel & Grüner
102 Gamboa et al.
Figure of Merit

Contreras et al.
101 Exact FOM

100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
-5
T = 40%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 3.1x102
10
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(h)

Fraser & Cook

103 Haacke × 106
Dressel & Grüner
102 Gamboa et al.
Figure of Merit

Contreras et al.
101 Exact FOM

100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
-5
T = 30%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 3.96x102
10
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]
Figure S9gh: FOM vs. R for spectral range (280 to 1100 nm), for T=40% (e) and 30% (f).
18
 (i)

103 Fraser & Cook

Haacke × 109
102 Dressel & Grüner
Gamboa et al.
101
Figure of Merit

Contreras et al.
Exact FOM
100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
2
6.2x10
10-5 T = 20%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(j)
103 Fraser & Cook
Haacke × 109
102 Dressel & Grüner
Gamboa et al.
101
Figure of Merit

Contreras et al.
Exact FOM
100
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5 T = 10%,l = 5mm,D = 280-1100 nm 1.245x103

10-1 100 101 102 103 104

Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]
Figure S9ij: FOM vs. R for spectral range (280 to 1100 nm), for T=20% (e) and 10% (f).
19
Table S1: Critical sheet resistance for the exact figure of merit for different

transmittance values for the spectral range from 280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell length

of 5 mm.
Transmittance Values for Critical point R ,c

(280 – 1100 nm) [Ω/ ]

[%]

100 125

90 140

80 155

70 178

60 207

50 250

40 310

30 396

20 620

10 1245

20
 1.0
0.9
Exact Figure of Merit

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
R ,c=140
0.0
10-1 100 101 102 103
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/sqaure]

Figure S10: Exact figure of merit vs. sheet resistance for TCE having a transmittance of

90% throughout the spectral range from 280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell length of 5 mm.

21
 100
Figure of Merit

Exact FOM
Contreras et al. n = 10
Contreras et al. n = 20
Contreras et al. n = 30
Contreras et al. n = 40
Contreras et al. n = 50
Contreras et al. n = 100
10-1
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

Figure S11: Figure of merit vs. sheet resistance for the exact FOM and Contreras et al.

FOM with different n values for TCE having a transmittance of 90% throughout the

spectral range from 280 to 1100 nm and a solar cell length of 5 mm.

5. Functional dependence of the transition sheet resistance on solar cell length

For TCE having 90% transmittance throughout the spectral range from 280 to 1100 nm, the

functional dependence of the transition sheet resistance on different solar cell length (a) 2.5

mm, (b) 5 mm, (c) 10 mm, and (d) 20 mm was evaluated (Figure S12 (a – d)). Figure S13

shows the functional dependence of solar cell length on the calculated transition sheet

resistance. The transition sheet resistance was calculated using Equation 24.

22
 (a)

qR = 320
Fraser & Cook × ~307
Haacke × ~800
Dressel & Grüner × ~8E-2
103 Gamboa et al. × ~0.722
Contreras et al. (n=100)
Exact FOM
Figure of Merit

102

101

100

10-1 T = 90%
l = 2.5mm
R ,c= 553
-2 D = 280-1100nm
10
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(b)
103
qR = 80
Fraser & Cook × ~78
Haacke × ~201
Dressel & Grüner × ~2.01E-2
Gamboa et al. × ~0.179
Contreras et al. (n=100)
102 Exact FOM
Figure of Merit

101

100

10-1
T = 90%
-2
10 l = 5mm
D = 280-1100nm R ,c= 140

10-1 100 101 102 103 104

Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

Figure S12ab: FOM vs. R for different solar length, for l = 2.5 mm (a) and l = 5mm (b).

23
 (c)

qR = 20
Fraser & Cook × ~20
Haacke × ~50
2
10 Dressel & Grüner × ~5.02E-3
Gamboa et al. × ~4.47E-2
Contreras et al. (n=100)
Exact FOM

101
Figure of Merit

100

10-1

10-2 T = 90%
l = 10mm
10 -3 D = 280-1100nm R ,c= 35

10-1 100 101 102 103 104

Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

(d)
102
qR = 5
Fraser & Cook × ~5
Haacke × ~12.5
Dressel & Grüner × ~1.25E-3
Gamboa et al. × ~1.12E-2

101 Contreras et al. (n=100)

Exact FOM
Figure of Merit

100

10-1

10-2
T = 90%
10-3
l = 20mm
R ,c= 8.7
-4 D = 280-1100nm
10
10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Sheet Resistance R [Ohm/square]

Figure S12cd: FOM vs. R for different solar length, for l = 10mm (a) and l = 20mm (b).
24
 6. Impact of different photovoltaic material system properties on the exact FOM

Table S2 shows the values of solar cell parameters for different photovoltaic materials

systems under AM1.5G in the Shockley-Queisser-Limit (SQL). Figure S13 shows the results

for the exact figure of merit for combinations of the transmittance and the sheet resistance for

different photovoltaic material systems.

Table S2: Solar cell parameters for different photovoltaic materials under AM1.5G in

the Shockley-Queisser-Limit (SQL).

Wavelength Short Open Fill Maximum Dark Power

range circuit circuit factor power saturation loss

[nm] current voltage FF point current Ploss

density VOC [%] PMPP density [mW/cm2]

JSC [mV] [mW] JO

[mA/cm2] [mA/cm2]

280 – 1100 43.52 883 87.04 33.45 6.4E-12 1.49E-05

280 – 900 33.74 1117 89.17 33.61 5.89E-16 9.05E-06

280 – 830 29.18 1225 89.93 32.15 7.73E-18 6.75E-06

280 – 800 27.27 1277 90.29 31.44 9.52E-19 5.92E-06

280 – 700 20.44 1484 91.38 27.71 2.37E-22 3.36E-06

700 – 1100 23.08 867 86.83 17.37 6.4E-12 4.14E-06

25
Figure S13: Contour plot of the exact figure of merit for (a) C-Si, m-Si, nc-Si, CIGS,

CZTS (280 to 1100 nm), (b) GaAS, CdTe, InP, PbS QD (280 to 900 nm), (c) Dye/TiO2

(DSSC) (280 to 830 nm), (d) OPV, Perovskite (280 to 800 nm), (e) a-Si, GaInP (280 to

700 nm) and (d) AgrOPV (OPV for Agrivoltaics) (700 to 1100 nm) solar cells for

combinations of the transmittance and the sheet resistance.

26
7. Transmittance spectra of bare glass

100
90
80
Transmittance T [%]

70
60
50
40
30
20
10 Bare glass
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength  [nm]

Figure S14: Transmittance spectra of bare glass

8. Figure of merit for different transparent conductive electrodes

Figure 15 (a – f ) shows the figure of merit (a) Fraser & Cook, (b) Haacke, (c) Dressel &

Grüner, (d) Gamboa et al., (e) Contreras et al., and (f) exact figure of merit values for

different transparent conductive electrodes was evaluated for the spectral range of 350 to 800

nm and a solar cell length of 5 mm. Three TCEs were evaluated for the spectral range of 400

to 800 nm and a solar cell length of 5 mm due to data unavailability. Table S3 shows the

comparison between different TCEs based on different figures of merit.

Note: The data points with open symbols are FOM values of TCEs for which only film

transmittance spectra data were available.

27
 Haacke FOM [Ohm-1] Fraser & Cook FOM [Ohm-1]

10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
(b) 100
10-3
10-2
10-1
(a) 100

ITO
FTO ITO
FTO
Ag
Au Ag
A g Au
PED Au/ /Au
Ag/ PED A
Au/ g/Au
OT:
P PSS C60 Au OT: Ag/
PEDEDOT + D /Ag P PSS C60 Au
OT: :PSS PEDEDOT + D /Ag
PED PED PSS + MSO OT: :PSS
O PED PED PSS + MSO
OT: T:P + H PEO
PSS SS 2SO O
OT: T:P + H PEO
+ C + Zo 4 PSS SS 2SO
Gra F3S nyl + C + Zo 4
phe O3H Gra F3S nyl
ne/P phe O3H
E DO C CNT ne/P
N E DO C CNT
TFS T:PS T/Cu
A- S/ N
TFS T:PS T/Cu
A- S/

28
Cu/GraphZnO
Gra ene Cu/GraphZnO
p Gra ene
Cu-hene p
AgNBHT Cu-hene
CuNW1 AgNBHT
CuNW1 CuNW1
AgNW2 CuNW1
ZnS AgNW2
/Cu AgNW 2 ZnS
: W /Cu AgNW 2
MoA ZO/Ag/WO3 : W
A 3 MoA ZO/Ag/WO3
AZO ZnO3/Ag g/AZO A 3
/Ag S/Cu /MoO AZO ZnO3/Ag g/AZO
NW /A 3 /Ag S/Cu /MoO
Ag /AZOg/ZnS NW /A 3
Cu metal /ZnO Ag /AZOg/ZnS
Ag Nanotrmesh Cu metal /ZnO
N Ag Nanotrmesh
Al anot ough N
Au Nanotrrough Al anot ough
Nan oug Au Nanotrrough
otro h Nan oug
ugh otro h
ugh
--
--

Figure S15ab: (a) Fraser & Cook and (b) Haacke FOM for different TCEs.
 Gamboa et al. FOM [mAcm-2Ohm-1] Dressel & Gruener FOM

100
101
102
103
(c) 104

10-1
100
101
(d) 102
ITO ITO
FTO FTO
Ag Ag
Au A Au
PED A
Au/ g/Au PED Au/ /Aug
Ag/ OT: Ag/
P
OT:
PSS C60 Au P PSS C60 Au
PEDEDOT + D /Ag PEDEDOT + D /Ag
OT: :PSS OT: :PSS
PED PED PSS + MSO PED PED PSS + MSO
O
OT: T:P + H PEO OT: OT:P + H PEO
PSS SS 2SO
PSS SS 2SO
+ C + Zo 4 Gra + C + Zo 4
Gra F3S nyl phe F3S nyl
phe O3H ne/P O3H
ne/P
E DO C CNT E DO C CNT
N
TFS T:PS T/Cu TFS T:PSNT/Cu
A- S/ A- S/

29
Cu/GraphZnO Cu/GraphZnO
Gra ene Gra ene
p p
Cu-hene Cu-hene
AgNBHT AgNBHT
CuNW1 CuNW1
CuNW1 CuNW1
AgNW2 ZnS AgNW2
ZnS
2 /Cu AgNW 2
/Cu AgNW
: W : W
MoA ZO/Ag/WO3
MoA ZO/Ag/WO3
A 3 A 3
AZO ZnO3/Ag g/AZO AZO ZnO3/Ag g/AZO
/Ag S/Cu /MoO /Ag S/Cu /MoO
NW /A 3 NW /Ag/ 3
Ag /AZOg/ZnS Ag /AZO ZnS
Cu metal /ZnO Cu metal /ZnO
Ag Nanotrmesh
Ag Nanotrmesh
N N
Al anot ough Al anot ough
Au Nanotrrough Au Nanotrrough
Nan oug Nan oug
otro h otro h
ugh ugh
-- --

Figure S15cd: (c) Dressel & Grüner and (d) Gamboa et al. FOM for different TCEs.
 Exact Figure of Merit
Contreras et al. FOM [Ohm-1]

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
(f) 1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
(e) 1.0

ITO ITO
FTO FTO
Ag Ag
A Au Au
PED Au/ /Aug PED A
Au/ g/Au
OT: Ag/ Ag/
P PSS C60 Au P
OT:
PSS C60 Au
PEDEDOT + D /Ag PEDEDOT + D /Ag
OT: :PSS OT: :PSS
PED PED PSS + MSO PED PED PSS + MSO
OT: OT:P + H PEO
PSS SS 2SO O
OT: T:P + H PEO
PSS SS 2SO
Gra + C + Zo 4 + C + Zo 4
phe F3S nyl Gra F3S nyl
ne/P O3H phe O3H
ne/P
E DO C CNT E DO C CNT
TFS T:PSNT/Cu N
TFS T:PS T/Cu
A- S/ A- S/

30
Cu/GraphZnO Cu/GraphZnO
Gra ene Gra ene
p p
Cu-hene Cu-hene
AgNBHT AgNBHT
CuNW1 CuNW1
CuNW1 CuNW1
ZnS AgNW2 AgNW2
/Cu AgNW 2 ZnS
2
: W /Cu AgNW
: W
MoA ZO/Ag/WO3
A 3 MoA ZO/Ag/WO3
A 3
AZO ZnO3/Ag g/AZO AZO ZnO3/Ag g/AZO
/Ag S/Cu /MoO /Ag S/Cu /MoO
NW /Ag/ 3 NW /A 3
Ag /AZO ZnS Ag /AZOg/ZnS
Cu metal /ZnO Cu metal /ZnO
Ag Nanotrmesh
N Ag Nanotrmesh
N
Al anot ough Al anot ough
Au Nanotrrough Au Nanotrrough
Nan oug Nan oug
otro h otro h
ugh ugh
-- --

Figure S15ef: (e) Contreras et al. and (f) exact FOM for different TCEs.
wihtout glass
 Table S3: Comparison between established figures of merit and the exact figure of merit for different TCEs (Δλ= 350 – 800 nm) and a solar cell length of

5 mm).

TCE Sheet Average Substrate Fraser Haacke Dressel Gamboa Contreras Exact Reference

resistance transmittance & [Ω-1] & et al. et al. figure

[Ω/ ] (350 – 800 nm) Cook [mA/cm2 [Ω-1] of

[%] [Ω-1] Gruener Ω] merit

Metal oxides

 ITO 10 85.53 Glass 0.087 0.0255 266.350 23.108 0.693 0.846 This work

 FTO 4.0 ± 0.14 83.81 Glass 0.222 0.0764 771.778 57.432 0.773 0.849 [7]

Ultra-thin metals

 Ag 15.7 49.79 Glass 0.032 0.0003 72.473 8.288 0.386 0.479 [8]

 Au 7 43.50 Glass 0.076 0.0001 29.764 17.199 0.438 0.447 [8]

 Au/Ag 7.8 50.70 Glass 0.069 0.0003 66.214 16.750 0.437 0.486 [8]

 Au/Ag/Au ~10.42 ± 0.5 48.43 Glass 0.053 0.0003 53.223 12.023 0.441 0.467 [9]

 C60-surfactant/Ag 1.70 21.24 Glass 0.108 0.0000 83.396 27.921 0.175 0.180 [10]

31
Conductive polymers
64 81.37 Glass 0.013 0.0025 30.514 3.388 0.549 0.730 This work
 PEDOT:PSS + DMSO
72 91.84 Glass 0.012 0.0030 33.167 3.127 0.560 0.745 [11]
 PEDOT:PSS + PEO
0.013ǂ 0.0070ǂ 75.155ǂ 3.410ǂ 0.609ǂ 0.803ǂ

46.1 95.41 Glass 0.019 0.0062 63.346 5.101 0.602 0.809 [12]
 PEDOT:PSS + H2SO4
0.021ǂ 0.0140ǂ 184.840ǂ 5.543ǂ 0.653ǂ 0.873ǂ

 PEDOT:PSS + Zonyl 46 79.09 Glass 0.018 0.0030 39.425 4.547 0.560 0.728 [13]

 PEDOT:PSS + CF3SO3H* 32 85.99 PET 0.028 0.0091 92.893 6.928 0.625 0.815 [14]

Carbon nanotubes

 Pristine CNT 17 78.92 Glass 0.047 0.0062 93.187 12.630 0.602 0.778 [15]

 CNT/Cu 39 79.14 Glass 0.020 0.0025 39.199 5.507 0.549 0.752 [16]

Graphene

 Graphene/PEDOT:PSS/ZnO 230 86.13 Glass 0.004 0.0011 11.834 1.014 0.508 0.555 [17]

 TFSA-Graphene 185 87.29 PET 0.005 0.0015 15.569 1.279 0.523 0.619 [18]

 Cu/Graphene ~75 92.76 Glass 0.012 0.0031 33.095 3.075 0.560 0.755 [19]

32
 0.013ǂ 0.0076ǂ 88.787ǂ 3.370ǂ 0.614ǂ 0.817ǂ

 Cu-BHT* 200 78.29 Glass 0.004 0.0006 8.172 1.019 0.473 0.569 [20]

Nanowires

 AgNW1* 10.3 88.10 Glass 0.0862 0.0295 289.281 22.237 0.703 0.869 [21]

51.5 89.35 PET 0.0174 0.0063 63.497 4.692 0.603 0.821 [22]
 CuNW1
11.2 91.93 Glass 0.081 0.0326 326.139 21.062 0.710 0.893
 CuNW2* [23]
8.5 89.15 Glass 0.104 0.0351 355.550 27.222 0.715 0.880
 AgNW2* [23]
~10 76.30 Glass 0.0824 0.0144 185.420 21.393 0.654 0.783
 AgNW3 [24]

Dielectric/Metal/Dielectric

 ZnS/Cu:Ag/WO3 31 78.98 Glass 0.027 0.0064 71.873 6.803 0.603 0.752 [25]

6 79.04 Glass 0.139 0.0268 328.383 35.626 0.696 0.789 [26]

 AZO/Ag/AZO
5 86.11 Glass 0.179 0.0655 656.624 46.566 0.761 0.860
 MoO3/Ag/MoO3 [27]
4.8 81.54 Glass 0.178 0.0442 487.495 47.051 0.732 0.833
 ZnS/Cu/Ag/ZnS [28]
11.3 88.63 Glass 0.083 0.0459 500.064 20.641 0.735 0.883
 AZO/Ag NW/AZO/ZnO* [29]

33
Metal network

 Ag metal mesh 10 85.89 Glass 0.086 0.0210 232.583 23.017 0.680 0.842 [30]

 Cu nanotrough 15 95.45 Glass 0.059 0.0191 194.682 15.735 0.673 0.856 [31]

0.064ǂ 0.0430ǂ 568.066ǂ 17.093ǂ 0.730ǂ 0.928ǂ

 Ag nanotrough 15 86.57 Glass 0.053 0.0069 104.871 14.117 0.608 0.770 [31]

0.058ǂ 0.0170ǂ 177.616ǂ 15.474ǂ 0.665ǂ 0.842ǂ

 Al nanotrough 21 66.10 Glass 0.028 0.0002 29.164 7.459 0.431 0.569 [31]

0.031ǂ 0.0007ǂ 38.790ǂ 8.429ǂ 0.486ǂ 0.641ǂ

 Au nanotrough 17 91.86 Glass 0.050 0.0121 134.576 13.297 0.643 0.818 [31]

0.055ǂ 0.0280ǂ 292.681ǂ 14.494ǂ 0.699ǂ 0.890ǂ

Note: TCE with * sign was evaluated for Δλ = 400 – 800 nm due to the data unavailability below 400 nm.
The values with ǂ symbol represent FOM values of TCEs for which only film transmittance spectra were taken into account for the analysis.

34
9. References

[1] H. Hoppe, M. Seeland, B. Muhsin, Optimal geometric design of monolithic thin-film solar
modules: Architecture of polymer solar cells, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 97 (2012) 119-
126.
[2] M. Burgelman, A. Niemegeers, Calculation of CIS and CdTe module efficiencies, Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 51 (1998) 129-143.
[3] M. Seeland, H. Hoppe, Comparison of distributed vs. lumped series resistance modeling
of thin-film solar cells and modules: Influence on the geometry-dependent efficiency, Physica
Status Solidi a-Applications and Materials Science 212 (2015) 1991-2000.
[4] W. Shockley, H.J. Queisser, Detailed balance limit of efficiency of p-n junction solar cells,
J. Appl. Phys. 32 (1961) 510-&.
[5] J.F. Guillemoles, T. Kirchartz, D. Cahen, U. Rau, Guide for the perplexed to the
Shockley-Queisser model for solar cells, Nat. Photonics 13 (2019) 501-505.
[6] S. Rühle, Tabulated values of the Shockley-Queisser limit for single junction solar cells,
Sol. Energy 130 (2016) 139-147.
[7] B.R. Koo, D.H. Oh, D.H. Riu, H.J. Ahn, Improvement of Transparent Conducting
Performance on Oxygen Activated Fluorine-Doped Tin Oxide Electrodes Formed by
Horizontal Ultrasonic Spray Pyrolysis Deposition, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9 (2017)
44584-44592.
[8] G.Y. Xu, L. Shen, C.H. Cui, S.P. Wen, R.M. Xue, W.J. Chen, H.Y. Chen, J.W. Zhang,
H.K. Li, Y.W. Li, Y.F. Li, High-Performance Colorful Semitransparent Polymer Solar Cells
with Ultrathin Hybrid-Metal Electrodes and Fine-Tuned Dielectric Mirrors, Adv. Funct.
Mater. 27 (2017) 10.
[9] C.S. Prakasarao, P. Hazarika, S.D. Dsouza, J.M. Fernandes, M. Kovendhan, R.A. Kumar,
D.P. Joseph, Investigation of ultra-thin and flexible Au-Ag-Au transparent conducting
electrode, Curr. Appl. Phys. 20 (2020) 1118-1124.
[10] C.C. Chueh, S.C. Chien, H.L. Yip, J.F. Salinas, C.Z. Li, K.S. Chen, F.C. Chen, W.C.
Chen, A.K.Y. Jen, Toward High-Performance Semi-Transparent Polymer Solar Cells:
Optimization of Ultra-Thin Light Absorbing Layer and Transparent Cathode Architecture,
Adv. Energy Mater. 3 (2013) 417-423.
[11] E. Dauzon, Y.B. Lin, H. Faber, E. Yengel, X. Sallenave, C. Plesse, F. Goubard, A.
Amassian, T.D. Anthopoulos, Stretchable and Transparent Conductive PEDOT:PSS-Based
Electrodes for Organic Photovoltaics and Strain Sensors Applications, Adv. Funct. Mater. 30
(2020) 11.
[12] N. Kim, S. Kee, S.H. Lee, B.H. Lee, Y.H. Kahng, Y.R. Jo, B.J. Kim, K. Lee, Highly
Conductive PEDOT: PSS Nanofibrils Induced by Solution-Processed Crystallization, Adv.
Mater. 26 (2014) 2268-2272.
[13] M. Vosgueritchian, D.J. Lipomi, Z.A. Bao, Highly Conductive and Transparent
PEDOT:PSS Films with a Fluorosurfactant for Stretchable and Flexible Transparent
Electrodes, Adv. Funct. Mater. 22 (2012) 421-428.
[14] J.Y. Wan, Y.G. Xia, J.F. Fang, Z.G. Zhang, B.G. Xu, J.Z. Wang, L. Ai, W.J. Song, K.N.
Hui, X. Fan, Y.F. Li, Solution-Processed Transparent Conducting Electrodes for Flexible
Organic Solar Cells with 16.61% Efficiency, Nano-Micro Lett. 13 (2021) 14.
[15] I. Jeon, C. Delacou, H. Okada, G.E. Morse, T.H. Han, Y. Sato, A. Anisimov, K. Suenaga,
E.I. Kauppinen, S. Maruyama, Y. Matsuo, Polymeric acid-doped transparent carbon nanotube
electrodes for organic solar cells with the longest doping durability, J. Mater. Chem. A 6
(2018) 14553-14559.
35
[16] F. Daneshvar, S. Tagliaferri, H.X. Chen, T. Zhang, C. Liu, H.J. Sue, Ultralong
Electrospun Copper-Carbon Nanotube Composite Fibers for Transparent Conductive
Electrodes with High Operational Stability, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 2 (2020) 2692-2698.
[17] Z.K. Liu, P. You, S.H. Liu, F. Yan, Neutral-Color Semitransparent Organic Solar Cells
with All-Graphene Electrodes, ACS Nano 9 (2015) 12026-12034.
[18] D.H. Shin, C.W. Jang, H.S. Lee, S.W. Seo, S.H. Choi, Semitransparent Flexible Organic
Solar Cells Employing Doped-Graphene Layers as Anode and Cathode Electrodes, ACS Appl.
Mater. Interfaces 10 (2018) 3596-3601.
[19] J.H. Kang, S. Choi, Y.J. Park, J.S. Park, N.S. Cho, S. Cho, B. Walker, D.S. Choi, J.W.
Shin, J.H. Seo, Cu/graphene hybrid transparent conducting electrodes for organic photovoltaic
devices, Carbon 171 (2021) 341-349.
[20] X. Huang, P. Sheng, Z.Y. Tu, F.J. Zhang, J.H. Wang, H. Geng, Y. Zou, C.A. Di, Y.P. Yi,
Y.M. Sun, W. Xu, D.B. Zhu, A two-dimensional pi-d conjugated coordination polymer with
extremely high electrical conductivity and ambipolar transport behaviour, Nat. Commun. 6
(2015) 8.
[21] J.Y. Lee, S.T. Connor, Y. Cui, P. Peumans, Solution-processed metal nanowire mesh
transparent electrodes, Nano Lett. 8 (2008) 689-692.
[22] H.Z. Guo, N. Lin, Y.Z. Chen, Z.W. Wang, Q.S. Xie, T.C. Zheng, N. Gao, S.P. Li, J.Y.
Kang, D.J. Cai, D.L. Peng, Copper Nanowires as Fully Transparent Conductive Electrodes,
Sci Rep 3 (2013) 8.
[23] P.-C. Hsu, D. Kong, S. Wang, H. Wang, A.J. Welch, H. Wu, Y. Cui, Electrolessly
Deposited Electrospun Metal Nanowire Transparent Electrodes, Journal of the American
Chemical Society 136 (2014) 10593-10596.
[24] F. Guo, N. Li, V.V. Radmilovic, V.R. Radmilovic, M. Turbiez, E. Spiecker, K. Forberich,
C.J. Brabec, Fully printed organic tandem solar cells using solution-processed silver
nanowires and opaque silver as charge collecting electrodes, Energy Environ. Sci. 8 (2015)
1690-1697.
[25] L. Cattin, A. El Mahlali, M.A. Cherif, S. Touihri, Z. El Jouad, Y. Mouchaal, P.
Blanchard, G. Louarn, H. Essaidi, M. Addou, A. Khelil, P. Torchio, J.C. Bernède, New
dielectric/metal/dielectric electrode for organic photovoltaic cells using Cu:Al alloy as metal,
Journal of Alloys and Compounds 819 (2020) 152974.
[26] M. Acosta, J. Mendez-Gamboa, I. Riech, C. Acosta, M. Zambrano, AZO/Ag/AZO
multilayers electrodes evaluated using a photonic flux density figure of merit for solar cells
applications, Superlattices Microstruct. 127 (2019) 49-53.
[27] L. Cattin, G. Louarn, M. Morsli, J.C. Bernède, Semi-Transparent Organic Photovoltaic
Cells with Dielectric/Metal/Dielectric Top Electrode: Influence of the Metal on Their
Performances, Nanomaterials 11 (2021) 393.
[28] Y. Mouchaal, G. Louarn, A. Khelil, M. Morsli, N. Stephant, A. Bou, T. Abachi, L. Cattin,
M. Makha, P. Torchio, J.C. Bernede, Broadening of the transmission range of dielectric/metal
multilayer structures by using different metals, Vacuum 111 (2015) 32-41.
[29] A. Kim, Y. Won, K. Woo, S. Jeong, J. Moon, All-Solution-Processed Indium-Free
Transparent Composite Electrodes based on Ag Nanowire and Metal Oxide for Thin- Film
Solar Cells, Adv. Funct. Mater. 24 (2014) 2462-2471.
[30] K.D.M. Rao, C. Hunger, R. Gupta, G.U. Kulkarni, M. Thelakkat, A cracked polymer
templated metal network as a transparent conducting electrode for ITO-free organic solar cells,
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16 (2014) 15107-15110.
[31] H. Wu, D.S. Kong, Z.C. Ruan, P.C. Hsu, S. Wang, Z.F. Yu, T.J. Carney, L.B. Hu, S.H.
Fan, Y. Cui, A transparent electrode based on a metal nanotrough network, Nat. Nanotechnol.
8 (2013) 421-425.
36