
Web Release Date: September 30,
Solar Energy Conversion by Dye-Sensitized Photovoltaic Cells
Laboratory for Photonics and Interfaces, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Received May 24, 2005
Abstract:
The quality of human life depends to a large degree on the availability of energy. This is threatened unless renewable energy resources can be developed in the near future. Chemistry is expected to make important contributions to identify environmentally friendly solutions of the energy problem. One attractive strategy discussed in this Forum Article is the development of solar cells that are based on the sensitization of mesoscopic oxide films by dyes or quantum dots. These systems have already reached conversion efficiencies exceeding 11%. The underlying fundamental processes of light harvesting by the sensitizer, heterogeneous electron transfer from the electronically excited chromophore into the conduction band of the semiconductor oxide, and percolative migration of the injected electrons through the mesoporous film to the collector electrode will be described below in detail. A number of research topics will also be discussed, and the examples for the first outdoor application of such solar cells will be provided.
While photovoltaics has been dominated by solid-state
junction devices, usually made from crystalline or amorphous
silicon and profiting from the experience and material
availability resulting from the semiconductor industry, there
is an increasing awareness of the possible advantages of
devices based on mesoscopic inorganic or organic semiconductors commonly referred to as "bulk" junctions because
of their interconnected three-dimensional structure. These are
formed for example from nanocrystalline inorganic oxides,
ionic liquids, and organic hole conductor or conducting
polymer devices,1-8
The development of these new types of solar cells is promoted by the increasing public awareness that the earth's oil reserves will run out during this century. Because the energy needs of the planet will at least double within the next 50 years, the stage is set for a major shortage of energy supply unless renewable sources can cover the substantial deficit that fossil fuels can no longer furnish.
Public concern has heightened recently because of the disastrous environmental pollution arising from all too frequent oil spills and the frightening climatic consequences of the greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. Fortunately, the supply of energy from the sun to the earth is gigantic, i.e., 3 × 1024 J year-1 or about 104 times more than what mankind consumes currently. In other words, covering only 0.1% of the earth's surface with solar cells with an efficiency of 10% would suffice to satisfy our current needs. To tap into this huge energy reservoir of the sun remains, nevertheless, a major challenge for mankind.
The present review addresses some of the current research issues in the field of a new solar cell based on charge electron injection from molecular sensitizers or quantum dots (QDs) into a wide-band-gap semiconductor oxide of nanocrystalline morphology. We shall start with a discussion of the properties of such mesoscopic films and the principles of solar light energy harvesting and conversion to electric power accomplished by these systems.
A schematic presentation of the operating principles of the DSC is given in Figure 1. At the heart of the system is a mesoscopic semiconductor oxide film, which is placed in contact with a redox electrolyte or an organic hole conductor. The material of choice has been TiO2 (anatase), although alternative wide-band-gap oxides such as ZnO and Nb2O5 have also been investigated. Attached to the surface of the nanocrystalline film is a monolayer of the sensitizer. Photoexcitation of the latter results in the injection of an electron into the conduction band of the oxide. The dye is regenerated by electron donation from the electrolyte, usually an organic solvent containing a redox system, such as the iodide/triiodide couple. The regeneration of the sensitizer by iodide intercepts the recapture of the conduction band electron by the oxidized dye. The iodide is regenerated, in turn, by the reduction of triiodide at the counter electrode, with the circuit being completed via electron migration through the external load. The voltage generated under illumination corresponds to the difference between the Fermi level of the electron in the solid and the redox potential of the electrolyte. Overall, the device generates electric power from light without suffering any permanent chemical transformation. The first laboratory embodiment of the DSC used a titanium sheet covered with a high-surface-area "fractal" TiO2 film that was produced by a sol-gel method. The roughness factor of the film was about 150. The surface of the fractal film was derivatized with the yellow ruthenium dye RuL3 (L = 2,2'-bipyridyl-4,4-dicarboxylate). A cylindrical platinum wire mesh electrode served as a counter electrode. The beaker was filled with slightly acidic aqueous electrolyte containing bromide and small amounts of bromine. The open-circuit voltage of the cell was 1 V under illumination with a halogen spotlight. The device converted more than 60% of the incident photons to electric current at the absorption maximum of the sensitizer near 470 nm, and the overall conversion efficiency in full sunlight was between 1 and 2%.9
Figure 2 shows the structure of the nanocrystalline semiconductor oxide electrode used today in the DSC as an electron collector to support a molecular or QD sensitizer. The most widely used oxide material is TiO2, although other wide-band semiconductor oxides such as ZnO, SnO2, or Nb2O5 have also been employed. Nanoparticles of the oxide are deposited, for example, by screen printing onto a glass or flexible plastic support covered with a transparent conducting layer of fluorine-doped tin dioxide (FTO) or tin-doped indium oxide (ITO). Each particle is coated with a monolayer of sensitizer or a QD formed by self-assembly from a staining solution.
Typically, the anatase nanoparticles are prepared with a
hydrothermal method.10 They exhibit predominantly a bipyramidal shape, with the exposed facets having (101)
orientation, which is the lowest energy surface of anatase.
Their average size is 20 nm. A short sintering process is
usually applied to ensure that the particles are electronically
These large-band-gap semiconductor oxide films are
insulating in the dark; however, a single electron injected in
a 20-nm-sized particle produces an electron concentration
of 2.4 × 1017 cm-3. This corresponds to a specific conductivity of 1.6 × 10-4 S cm-1 if a value of 10-4 cm2 s-1 is
used for the electron diffusion coefficient.11 In reality, the
situation is more complex because the transport of charge
carriers in these films involves trapping unless the Fermi
level of the electron is so close to the conduction band that
all of the traps are filled and the electrons are moving freely.
Therefore, the depth of the traps that participate in the
electron motion affects the value of the diffusion coefficient.
This explains the observation12,13
Figure 3 Local screening of electrons injected from a conducting support
into a nanocrystalline oxide film, e, is the Fermi level of the electrons.
|
The electron motion in the conduction band of the mesoscopic oxide film is coupled with an interfacial electron-transfer reaction and with ion diffusion in the electrolyte. Bisquert16 has used an infinite transmission line description to model these processes. The mesoscopic film is thought to be composed of a string of oxide nanoparticles (Figure 4). Loss of electrons to the electrolyte occurs via reduction of triiodide. The equivalent electrical circuit shown in the lower part of the figure treats each particle as a resistive element coupled to the electrolyte through the interface. The latter is presented by the electric double-layer capacitor (C) connected in parallel with the resistance (rct) for interfacial electron transfer. The red dots denote electrolyte cations.
It is clear from Figure 4 that the movement of electrons
in the conduction band of the mesoscopic films must be
accompanied by the diffusion of charge-compensating cations
in the electrolyte layer close to the nanoparticle surface. The
cations screen the Coulomb potential of the electrons
avoiding the formation of uncompensated local space charge,
which would impair its motion through the film. This justifies
using an "ambipolar" or effective diffusion coefficient, which
contains both contributions from the electrons and charge-compensating cations17,18
The absorption of light by a monolayer of dye is weak because of the fact that the area occupied by one molecule is much larger than its optical cross section for light capture. A respectable photovoltaic efficiency cannot, therefore, be obtained by use of a flat semiconductor surface but rather by use of the porous, nanostructured film of very high surface roughness discussed above. When light penetrates the photosensitized semiconductor "sponge", it crosses hundreds of adsorbed dye monolayers. The mesoporous structure thus fulfills a function similar to the thylakoid vesicles in green leaves, which are stacked in order to enhance light harvesting by chlorophyll.
Apart from providing a folded surface to enhance light
harvesting by the adsorbed sensitizer, the role of the
nanocrystalline film is to serve as an electron conductor. The
conduction band of the large-band-gap semiconductor oxide
accepts the electrons from the electronically excited sensitizer. The electrons injected into the solid percolate very
rapidly across the TiO2 layer. From the above-mentioned
electron diffusion coefficient of 10-4 cm2 s-1,11 one derives
that the time required for crossing a TiO2 film, say, of 10-
m thickness is 10 ms. During diffusion, electrons maintain
their high electrochemical potential, which is equal to the
quasi-Fermi level of the semiconductor under illumination.
Thus, the principal function of TiO2, apart from supporting
the sensitizer, is that of charge collection and conduction.
The advantage of using a semiconductor layer rather than a
phospholipid membrane as in natural photosynthesis is that
such an inorganic oxide is extremely stable and allows for
fast electron movement. The charge transfer across the
photosynthetic membrane is less rapid because it takes about
100
s to displace the electron across the 50-Å-thick
thylakoid layer. Moreover, nature has to sacrifice more than
half of the absorbed photon energy to drive the transmembrane redox processes at such a rate. In the case of the
semiconductor film, the price to pay for the rapid vectorial
charge displacement is small. It corresponds to at most 50-100 meV of driving force for the electron injection process
at the semiconductor/sensitizer interface.
In contrast to chlorophyll, which is continuously being
synthesized in the leaf, the sensitizer in the DSC must be
selected to satisfy the high stability requirements encountered
in practical applications. A photovoltaic device must remain
serviceable for 20 years without significant loss of performance corresponding to a number of 50-100 million
turnovers for the dye. Recent work has focused on the
molecular engineering of suitable ruthenium compounds,
which are known for their excellent stability. cis-Di(thiocyanato)bis(2,2'-bipyridyl)-4,4'-dicarboxylate) ruthenium(II), coded as N3 or N-719 dye depending on whether it
contains four or two protons, was found to be an outstanding
solar light absorber and charge-transfer sensitizer.18 The
performance of this red ruthenium complex was for a long
time unmatched by any other dyestuff. A few years ago, a
black dye was discovered that shows a performance comparable to that of N3 as a charge-transfer sensitizer in the
DSC.19 The structure of these sensitizers is shown in Figure
5. Recently, heteroleptic analogues to the N3 ruthenium dye
carrying only one carboxylated bipyridyl ligand have been
introduced, with the other bipyridyl being modified by
hydrophobic chains or extended
-conjugated systems. These
will be discussed further below.
The mesoscopic morphology of the semiconductor oxide film is essential for the efficient operation of the device. As pointed out above, on a flat surface a monolayer of dye absorbs at most a few percent of light because it occupies an area that is several hundred times larger than its optical cross section. In addition, a compact semiconductor oxide film would need to be n-doped to conduct electrons. In this case, energy-transfer quenching of the excited sensitizer by the electrons in the semiconductor would inevitably reduce the photovoltaic conversion efficiency.
Films made of oxide nanoparticles provide a strikingly simple and powerful means to achieve efficient harvesting of sunlight by the adsorbed dye monolayer.2 The anatase particles shown in Figure 2 have an average size of 20 nm, and the facets exposed have mainly (101) orientation, corresponding to the anatase crystal planes with the lowest surface energy. Employing such oxide nanocrystals covered by a monolayer of sensitizer as light-harvesting units allowed us to overcome the notorious inefficiency problems, which had haunted all solar energy conversion devices based on the sensitization of wide-band-gap semiconductors previously.
Consider, for example, a 10-
m-thick mesoscopic oxide
film composed of 20-nm-sized particles whose real surface
area is over 1000 times greater than the projected one.
Because of the small size of the particle, such films show
high transparency and negligible light scattering. Beer-Lambert's law can be applied to describe the light absorption
in terms of the reciprocal absorption length

and c are the optical absorption cross section of the
sensitizer and its concentration in the mesoporous film,
respectively. The value of
can be derived from the decadic
extinction coefficient
of the sensitizer using the relation
Figure 5 shows the structures of three ruthenium complexes that have been widely employed as sensitizers for the
DSC. The optical cross sections near the absorption maximum of these dyes are in the range of 1 × 107-2 × 107
cm2 mol-1, and their concentration in the film at full
monolayer coverage is about 2 × 10-4 mol cm-3. Hence,
= (2-4) × 103 cm-1, and the absorption length 1/
of these
sensitizers is 2.5-5
m.
The light-harvesting efficiency, LHE, is derived from the
reciprocal absorption length via

m, yielding LHE values over 90% in the
wavelength range near the absorption maximum of the dye.
This explains the deep coloration of the nanocrystalline TiO2
layers despite of the fact that they are covered only by a
monolayer of sensitizer.
The absorption length can be further reduced by exploiting
light localization and optical enhancement effects. For
example, incorporating 100-400-nm-sized anatase particles
enhances significantly the absorption of red or near-infrared
photons by the film. These light-management strategies
employ scattering and photonic band-gap effects21-23
The incident photon to current conversion efficiency
(IPCE), sometimes referred to also as "external quantum
efficiency" (EQE), corresponds to the number of electrons
measured as photocurrent in the external circuit divided by
the monochromatic photon flux that strikes the cell. This
key parameter can be expressed by the product

) is the light-harvesting efficiency for photons
of wavelength
,
inj is the quantum yield for electron
injection from the excited sensitizer in the conduction band
of the semiconductor oxide, and
coll is the electron collection
efficiency. Having analyzed the LHE of dye-loaded mesoscopic films above, we discuss now the other two parameters.
(i) Dynamics of Heterogeneous Electron Injection. The
quantum yield of charge injection (
inj) denotes the fraction
of the photons absorbed by the dye that are converted into
conduction band electrons. Charge injection from the electronically excited sensitizer into the conduction band of the
semiconductor is in competition with other radiative or
radiationless deactivation channels. Taking the sum of the
rate constants of these nonproductive channels together as
kdeact results in

inj, the rate constant
for charge injection should be at least 100 times higher than
kdeact. This means that injection rates in the picosecond range
or below have to be attained. In fact, in recent years
sensitizers have been developed that satisfy these requirements. These dyes should incorporate functional groups such
as, for example, carboxylate, hydroxamate, or phosphonate
moieties24 that anchor the sensitizer to the oxide surface.
Apart from forming a strong coordinative bond with the
titanium surface ions, these groups also effect an enhanced
electronic coupling of the sensitizer lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital with the conduction band of the semiconductor. The lowest energy electronic transition for ruthenium
polypyridyl complexes such as those shown in Figure 6 is
of metal-to-ligand charge-transfer (MLCT) character. Thus,
upon excitation the electron density shifts from the ruthenium
metal to the ligand, which should be the one that carries the
attaching groups and the one from which very rapid electron
injection into the semiconductor takes place. With molecularly engineered sensitizers such as these, the injection times
are in the pico- or femtosecond range25-28 and the quantum
yield of charge injection generally exceeds 90%. In fact, for
several sensitizers the electron transfer into the conduction
band of the oxide is so rapid that it occurs from vibrationally
hot excited states.26-28
Shown in Figure 7 is the transient absorption signal
(ii) Light-Induced Charge Separation. As the next step of the conversion of light into electrical current, a complete charge separation must be achieved. On thermodynamic grounds, the preferred process for the electron injected into the conduction band of the titanium dioxide films is the back reaction with the oxidized sensitizer. Naturally, this reaction is undesirable because, instead of electrical current, it merely generates heat. For the characterization of the recombination rate, an important kinetic parameter is the rate constant kb. It is of great interest to develop sensitizer systems for which the value of kinj is high and that of kb low.
It was shown above that, for the N-719 ruthenium sensitizer, the forward injection is an extremely rapid process occurring in the femtosecond time domain. By contrast, the back reaction of the electrons with the oxidized ruthenium complex involves a d orbital localized on the ruthenium metal whose electronic overlap with the TiO2 conduction band is small and is further reduced by the spatial contraction of the wave function upon oxidation of Ru(II) to Ru(III). Thus, the electronic coupling element for the back reaction is 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller for the back electron transfer as compared to injection reducing the back reaction rate by the same factor.
A second very important contribution to the kinetic retardation of charge recombination arises from the fact that this process is characterized by a large driving force and small reorganization energy, with the respective values for N-719 being 1.5 and 0.3 eV, respectively. This places the electron recapture clearly in the inverted Marcus region, reducing its rate by several orders of magnitude. This provides also a rationale for the observation that this interfacial redox process is almost independent of temperature and is surprisingly insensitive to the ambient that is in contact with the film.31
Charge recombination is, furthermore, inhibited by the existence of an electric field at the surface of the titanium dioxide film. While there is practically no depletion layer within the oxide due to the small size of the particles and their low doping level, a surface field is established spontaneously by proton transfer from the carboxylic acid groups of the ruthenium complex to the oxide surface, producing a charged dipole layer. If the film is placed in contact with a protic solvent, the latter can also act as a proton donor. In aprotic media, Li+ or Mg2+ are potential determining ions for TiO232 and they may be used to charge the surface positively. The local potential gradient from the negatively charged sensitizer to the positively charged oxide drives the injection in the desired direction. The same field also inhibits the electrons from exiting the solid after injection has taken place.
Finally, the back-reaction dynamics are strongly influenced by the trapping of the conduction band in the mesoscopic film. If the diffusion of trapped electrons to the particle surface is rate-determining, the time law for the back reaction is a stretched exponential.33 If, by contrast, the interfacial back electron transfer is so slow that it becomes rate-determining, then the back reaction follows first-order kinetics.
Shown in Figure 8 are results from laser photolysis
experiments34 that illustrate these two cases. The decay of
the transient absorption reflects the recombination of electrons from the conduction band of the titania nanoparticles
with the oxidized form of the ruthenium sensitizers N-719
Therefore, the time law for the back reaction is a stretched exponential (black curve in Figure 8). The N-845 sensitizer shown in Figure 9 has a hole-trapping triarylamine function attached to one of its bipyridyl ligands. Following electron injection, the positive charge is transferred from the ruthenium ion to the triarylamine group, moving the hole away from the surface. The increased distance retards the back electron transfer to such an extent that it becomes the rate-limiting step. Hence, a simple exponential decay is observed on a very slow time scale reaching hundreds of milliseconds.
| Figure 9 Structure of the N-845 dye and the redox processes that follow light-induced electron injection from this sensitizer into the conduction band of a titania particle. |
(iii) Charge-Carrier Collection. The question of charge-carrier percolation over the mesoscopic particle network has already been adressed above. This important process leading to nearly quantitative collection of electrons injected by the sensitizer is presently attracting a great deal of attention. For example, impedance spectroscopy gives useful clues to rationalize the intriguing findings made with these films under band-gap illumination.35
Apart from recapture by the oxidized dye, the electrons
can be lost to the electrolyte by reaction with the oxidized
sensitizer from of the redox mediator, e.g., triiodide ions:

Figure 10 illustrates the injection and recombination processes. Mastering the interface to impair the unwanted back reaction remains a key target of current research.36
The efficient interception of recombination by the electron
donor, e.g., iodide,

To reach a high conversion efficiency, provisions must
be made to collect all photogenerated charge carriers. IPCEs,
referred to also as EQEs, should be close to unity over the
near-UV, visible, and near-IR wavelength domain. A key
parameter is the electron diffusion length

r are the diffusion coefficient and lifetime of
the electron, respectively. Quantitative collection of charge
carriers can be achieved only if the electron diffusion length
is greater than the film thickness (d):
) in order to ascertain nearly
quantitative harvesting of the light in the spectral absorption
range of the QD or the molecular sensitizer:
Semiconductor QDs can replace dyes as light-harvesting
units in the DSC.38,39
A very recent exciting discovery shows that multiple excitons can be produced from the absorption of a single photon by a QD via impact ionization if the photon energy is 3 times higher than its band gap.40 The challenge is now to find ways to collect the excitons before they recombine. Because recombination occurs on a femtosecond time scale, the use of mesoporous oxide collector electrodes to remove the electrons presents a promising strategy, opening up research avenues that ultimately may lead to photoconverters reaching IPCE values of over 100%.
The most widely used sensitizer for the DSC has been cis-Ru(SCN)2L2 (L = 2,2'-bipyridyl-4,4'-dicarboxylate), abbreviated as N3.19 The redox system employed to regenerate the dye and transport the positive charges to the counter electrode has been the iodide/triiodide couple dissolved in an organic electrolyte or in a room-temperature ionic liquid, although very promising results have been obtained also with cobalt(II) complexes Figure 11 shows an operational diagram of the cell using these constituents, which form the main embodiment of the DSC to date.
The astounding performance of mesoscopic semiconductor junctions is illustrated in Figure 12, where we show the photoresponse of a state-of-the-art nanocrystalline titania film sensitized by the N-719 dye. The IPCE is plotted as a function of the wavelength. The IPCE values exceed 80% in the wavelength range near the absorption maximum of the sensitizer, which is located around 530 nm. Taking into account the light losses from the absorption and reflection by the FTO glass, the conversion of photons that strike the TiO2 film into electric current is almost quantitative. Even at 700 nm, where the absorption of light by the dye is weak, as shown in Figure 13, the IPCE value is still about 50%. The titania film in Figure 12 contained 400-nm-sized light-scattering particles, which enhance the optical path length and harvesting of light in the red wavelength region. This striking performance defies expectations because such large-area junctions should fare poorly in photovoltaic energy conversion in the presence of defects at the disordered surface, enhancing the recombination of photogenerated charge carriers.
Very high IPCEs can also be achieved with organic dyes.
Such sensitizers that come close to matching the efficiency
of the N-719 dye have recently been developed in Japan.42,43
These extraordinary findings are due to the specific kinetic features of the interfacial charge-transfer processes summarized in Figure 14. As discussed above, the initial events of electron injection and dye regeneration leading to photoinduced charge separation occur on a femto- to nanosecond or microsecond time scale,44 while the redox capture of the electron by the oxidized relay and the electron migration across the nanocrystalline film take place within milliseconds or even seconds. The square root of the product of the electron lifetime and diffusion coefficient corresponds to the diffusion length of the electron. If the latter is greater than the film thickness, all of the photogenerated carriers will be collected.
| Figure 14 Dynamics of redox processes involved in the conversion of light to electric power by DSCs. |
The overall conversion efficiency of the dye-sensitized cell
is determined by the photocurrent density measured at short
circuit (Isc), the open-circuit photovoltage (Voc), the fill factor
of the cell (ff), and the intensity of the incident light (Is).

Under full sunlight (air mass 1.5 global, intensity Is =
1000 W cm-2), short-circuit photocurrents ranging from 16
to 22 mA cm-2 are reached with state-of-the-art ruthenium
sensitizers, while Voc is 0.7-0.86 V and ff values are 0.65-0.8. A certified overall power conversion efficiency of 10.4%
| Figure 15 Photocurrent-voltage curve of a DSC at different light intensities. The conversion efficiency in full AM 1.5 sunlight was 11.04%. It increased to 11.18% at 65% full sunlight. |
While such efficiency figures render dye-sensitized cells
competitive with the conventional solar devices, a commercially even more significant parameter is the dye lifetime
achieved under working conditions. A recent stability test
during 12 000 h of continuous full-intensity light exposure
has confirmed that this system does not exhibit any inherent
instability,46 in contrast to amorphous silicon, which because
of the Stabler-Wronski effect undergoes photodegradation.
A heat-resistant quasi-solid-state electrolyte based on imidazolium iodide was introduced. When used in conjunction
with the amphiphilic ruthenium dye Z-907, it was possible
C with a DSC.47 Other laboratories have also presented
systematic verifications of the cell stability carried out
independently.
Very recently, heteroleptic ruthenium complexes such as
the K-19 dye have been introduced, which because of the
extension of
conjugation on one of the bipyidyl ligands
shows enhanced light absorption in the visible.48 Excellent
stability results under both long-term heat stress and light
soaking have been obtained with these sensitizers.49
The use of solvent-free electrolytes such as ionic liquids
During recent years, industrial interest in the DSC has
surged and the first commercial products have appeared. A
number of industrial corporations, such as Konarka
(www.konarkatech.com) in the U.S.A., Aisin Seiki in Japan,
Recognition is due to the members of the EPFL electrochemical photovoltaics development team, some of whose work is referenced below, and to those industrial and public organizations whose interest in this new system has induced them to support our research.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: michael.graetzel@epfl.ch.
1. O'Regan, B.; Grätzel, M. Nature 1991, 335, 737.
2. Grätzel, M. Nature 2001, 414, 338.![]()
3. Hagfeldt, A.; Grätzel, M. Acc. Chem. Res. 2000, 33, 269.![]()
4. Bach, U.; Lupo, D.; Comte, P.; Moser, J. E.; Weissörtel, F.; Salbeck,
J.; Spreitzert, H.; Grätzel, M. Nature 1998, 395, 544.
5. Brabec, C. J.; Sariciftci, N. S. Mater. Today 2000, 3.
6. Halls, J. J. M.; Pickler, K.; Friend, R. H.; Morati, S. C.; Holmes, A.
B. Nature 1995, 376, 498.![]()
7. Tennakone, K.; Kumara, G. R.; Kottegoda, I. R.; Perera, V. S. P. Chem.
Commun. 1999, 15.![]()
8. Sayama, K.; Suguhara, H.; Arakawa, H. Chem. Mater. 1998, 10, 3825.
9. Vlachopoulos, N.; Liska, P.; Augustynski, J.; Grätzel, M. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 1988, 110, 1216.![]()
10. Barbe, C. J.; Arendse, F.; Comte, P.; Jirousek, M.; Lenzmann, F.;
Shklover, V.; Grätzel, M. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1997, 80, 3157.![]()
11. Agrell, H. G.; Boschloo, G.; Hagfeldt, A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004,
108, 12388.![]()
12. Cass, M. J.; Walker, A. B.; Martinez, D.; Peter, L. M. J. Phys. Chem.
B 2005, 109, 5100.![]()
13. Frank, A. J.; Kopidakis, N.; van de Lagemaat, J. Coord. Chem. Rev.
2004, 248, 1165.![]()
14. Cass, M. J.; Qiu, F. L.; Alison, W. B.; Fisher, A. C.; Peter, L. M. J.
Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107 (1), 113.![]()
15. Kubo, W.; Kitamura, T.; Hanabusa, K.; Wada, Y.; Yanagida, S. Chem.
Commun. 2002, 374.![]()
16. Bisquert, J. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 325.![]()
17. Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Bisquert, J.; Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Boschloo,
G.; Hagfeldt, A. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2005, 87, 117.![]()
18. Nakade, S.; Kubo, W.; Saito, Y.; Kanzaki, T.; Kitamura, T.; Wada,
Y.; Yanagida, S. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107.
19. Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Kay, A.; Rodicio, I.; Humphrey-Baker, R.; Müller,
E.; Liska, P.; Vlachopoulos, N.; Grätzel, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993,
115, 6382.![]()
20. Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Pechy, P.; Renouard, T.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.;
Humphry-Baker, R.; Comte, P.; Liska, P.; Cevey, L.; Costa, E.;
Shklover, V.; Spiccia, L.; Deacon, G. B.; Bignozzi, C. A.; Grätzel,
M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 1613.![]()
21. Nishimura, S.; Abrams, N.; Lewis, B.; Halaoui, L. I.; Mallouk, Th.
E.; Benkstein, K. D.; van de Lagemaat, J.; Frank, A. J. J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 2003, 125, 6306.![]()
22. Halaoui, L. I.; Abrams, N. M.; Mallouk, T. E. J. Phys. Chem. 2005,
109, 6334.![]()
23. Hore, S.; Nitz, P.; Vetter, C.; Prahl, C.; Niggemann, M.; Kern, R.
Chem. Commun. 2005, 15, 2011.
24. Greijer, Agrell, R.; Lindgren, J.; Hagfeldt, A. Photochem. Photobiol.
A 2004, 164, 23.![]()
25. Tachibana, Y.; Moser, J. E.; Grätzel, M.; Klug, D. R.; Durrant, J. R.
J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 20056.![]()
26. Moser, J. E.; Grätzel, M. Chimia 1998, 52, 160.![]()
27. (a) Benkö, G.; Kallioinen, J.; Korppi-Tommola, J. E. I.; Yartsev, A.
P.; Sundström, V. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 489.
(b) Kallioinen,
J.; Benkö, G.; Sundström, V.; Korppi-Tommola, J. E. I.; Yartsev, A.
P. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 4396.
(c) Benkö, G.; Kallioinen, J.;
Myllyperkiö, P.; Trif, F.; Korppi-Tommola, J. E. I.; Yartsev, A. P.;
Sundström, V. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 2862.![]()
28. Schwarzburg, K.; Ernstorfer, R.; Felber, S.; Willig, F. Coord. Chem.
Rev. 2004, 248 (13-14), 1259.![]()
29. Wenger, B.; Grätzel, M.; Moser, J. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, in press.
30. (a) Lanzafame, J. M.; Miller, R. J. D.; Muenter, A. A.; Parkinson, B.
A. J. Phys. Chem. 1992, 96, 2820.
(b) Huber, R.; Moser, J. E.; Grätzel,
M.; Wachtveitl, J. Proc. SPIE 2003, 5223, 121.![]()
31. Moser, J. E.; Grätzel, M. Chem. Phys. 1993, 176, 493.![]()
32. Redmond, G.; Fitzmaurice, D. J. Phys. Chem. 1993, 97, 11081.![]()
33. Nelson, J.; Chandler, R. E. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2004, 248, 1181.![]()
34. Hirata, N.; Lagref, J.-J.; Palomares, E. J.; Durrant, J. R.; Nazeeruddin,
M. K.; Grätzel, M.; Di Censo, D. Chem. Eur. J. 2004, 10, 595.![]()
35. Fabregat-Santiago, F.; Bisquert, J.; Garcia-Belmonte, G.; Boschloo,
G.; Hagfeldt, A. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2005, 87, 117.![]()
36. Wang, P.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.; Moser, J. E.; Humphry-Baker, R.;
Comte, P.; Aranyos, V.; Hagfeldt, A.; Nazeeruddin, M. K.; Grätzel,
M. Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1806.![]()
37. Wang, P.; Wenger, B.; Humphry-Baker, R.; Moser, J.-E.; Teuscher,
J.; Kantlehner, W.; Mezger, J.; Stoyanov, E. V.; Zakeeruddin, S.-M.;
Grätzel, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 18.![]()
38. Plass, R.; Pelet, S.; Krüger, J.; Grätzel, M.; Bach, U. J. Phys. Chem.
B 2002, 106, 7578-7580.![]()
39. Nozik, A. J. Quantum dot solar cells. Next Gener. Photovoltaics 2004,
196.![]()
40. Schaller, R.; Klimov, V. I. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92, 186601.
41. Nusbaumer, H.; Zakeeruddin, S.-M.; Moser, J.-E.; Grätzel, M. Chem-Eur. J. 2003, 9, 3756.![]()
42. Hara, K.; Kurashigo, M.; Dan-oh, Y.; Kasasa, C.; Ohga, Y.; Shinpo,
A.; Suga, S.; Sayama, K.; Arakawa, H. New. J. Chem. 2003, 27, 783.
43. Horiuchi, T.; Miuraa, H.; Satoshi; Uchida Miura; et al. Chem. Commun.
2003, 3036.![]()
44. Bach, U.; Tachibana, Y.; Moser, J.-E.; Haque, S. A.; Durrant, J. R.;
Grätzel, M.; Klug, D. R. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121 (32), 7445.![]()
45. Dloczik, L.; Ileperuma, O.; Lauermann, I.; Peter, L. M.; Ponomarev,
E. A.; Redmond, G.; Shaw, N. J.; Uhlendorf, I. J. Phys. Chem. B
1997, 101, 10281.![]()
46. Hinsch, A.; Kroon, J. M.; Kern, R.; Uhlendorf, I.; Holzbock, J.; Meyer,
A.; Ferber, J. Prog. Photovoltaics 2001, 9, 425.![]()
47. Wang, P.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.; Moser, J. E.; Nazeeruddin, M. K.;
Sekiguchi, T.; Grätzel, M. Nat. Mater. 2003, 2, 402.![]()
48. Wang, P.; Klein, C.; Humphry-Baker, R.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.; Grätzel,
M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 808.![]()
49. Wang, P.; Klein, C.; Humphry-Baker, R.; Zakeeruddin, S. M.; Grätzel,
M. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 86, 123508.![]()
50. Kato, T.; Okazaki, A.; Hayase, S. Chem. Commun. 2005, 363.![]()
51. Grätzel, M. Photochem. Photobiol. A 2004, 164, 3.![]()