Abstract
A Taguchi experimental design was used to find which deposition parameter has the most dominant effect on the electrical resistivity of molybdenum (Mo) films. Based on the most important parameter, the Mo films were further characterized by structural, electrical, and adhesive methods. Then, a copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film was fabricated by a two-stage process on the obtained Mo layer. The results show that working pressure had a dominant effect on electrical resistivity. The Mo films deposited at 1 mTorr and 2 mTorr exhibited compressive strain and dense polycrystalline microstructure, whereas those deposited at 3 mTorr and 4 mTorr exhibited tensile strain and an elongated grain with open boundaries. A Mo film with open porous structure, tensile strain, and lower resistivity was suitable for the formation of CIGS films. After selenization at 560°C, a single-phase chalcopyrite CIGS film with a layer of MoSe2 at the Mo/CIGS interface was obtained.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Rockett and R.M. Birkmire, J. Appl. Phys. 70, R81 (1991).
I. Repins, M.A. Contreras, B. Egaas, C. DeHart, J. Scharf, C.L. Perkins, B. To, and R. Noufi, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 16, 235 (2008).
S.R. Dhage, H.S. Kim, and H.T. Hahn, J. Electron. Mater. 40, 122 (2011).
M.A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, and W. Warta, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 15, 425 (2007).
R. Caballero, C. Guillén, M.T. Gutiérrez, and C.A. Kaufmann, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 14, 145 (2006).
M.A. Martínez and C. Guillén, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 143–144, 326 (2003).
Y. Kamikawa-Shimizu, S. Shimada, M. Watanabe, A. Yamada, K. Sakurai, S. Ishizuka, H. Komaki, K. Matsubara, H. Shibata, H. Tampo, K. Maejima, and S. Niki, Phys. Status Solidi (a) 206, 1063 (2009).
F. Couzinié-Devy, N. Barreau, and J. Kessler, Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 19, 527 (2011).
M.A. Martinez and C. Guillén, Surf. Coat. Technol. 110, 62 (1998).
K. Orgassa, H.W. Schock, and J.H. Werner, Thin Solid Films 431/432, 387 (2003).
T. Yamaguchi and R. Miyagaa, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 30, 2069 (1991).
Z.-H. Li, E.-S. Cho, and S.J. Kwon, Appl. Surf. Sci. 257, 9682 (2011).
E. Kilickap, Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 6116 (2010).
P.J. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988).
Y.Y.M. Chiang and H.H. Hsieh, Comput. Ind. Eng. 56, 648 (2009).
L.I. Maissel and R. Glang, eds., Handbook of Thin Film Technology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).
M. Jubault, L. Ribeaucourt, E. Chassaing, G. Renou, D. Lincot, and F. Donsanti, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, S26 (2011).
G. Zoppi, N.S. Beattie, J.D. Major, R.W. Miles, and I. Forbes, J. Mater. Sci. 46, 4913 (2011).
J.H. Yoon, S. Cho, W.M. Kim, J.K. Park, Y.J. Baik, T.S. Lee, T.Y. Seong, and J.H. Jeong, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 2959 (2011).
H. Park, S.C. Kim, S.H. Lee, J. Koo, S.H. Lee, C.W. Jeon, S. Yoon, and W.K. Kim, Thin Solid Films 519, 7245 (2011).
M. Bodegård, K. Granath, and L. Stolt, Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells 58, 199 (1999).
D.W. Niles, K. Ramanathan, F. Hasoon, R. Noufi, J.T. Brain, and J.E. Fulghum, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 15, 3044 (1997).
K. Orgassa, Coherent optical analysis of the ZnO/CdS/Cu(In,Ga)Se2 thin film solar cell, PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart (2004).
R. Coehoorn, C. Haas, and R.A. de Groot, Phys. Rev. 35, 6203 (1987).
T. Wada, N. Kohara, S. Nishiwaki, and T. Negami, Thin Solid Films 387, 118 (2001).
J. Álvarez-García, A. Pérez-Rodríguez, A. Romano- Rodríguez, and J.R. Morante, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 19, 232 (2001).
A. Mallouky and J.C. Bernède, Thin Solid Films 158, 285 (1988).
D. Abou-Ras, G. Kostorz, D. Bremaud, M. Kalin, F.V. Kurdesau, A.N. Tiwari, and M. Dobeli, Thin Solid Films 480–481, 433 (2005).
S.A. Dinca, E.A. Schiff, B. Egaas, R. Noufi, D.L. Young, and W.N. Shafarman, Phys. Rev. B 80, 2352011 (2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, S., Hsu, C., Shiou, F. et al. Properties of the Mo Back Contact for the Formation of a Thin-Film Photovoltaic Absorber. J. Electron. Mater. 42, 71–77 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11664-012-2311-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11664-012-2311-3