PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

Modeling the influence of doping on the performance of bulk heterojunction organic solar cells:
One-dimensional effective semiconductor versus two-dimensional donor/acceptor model

Felix Florian Stelzl* and Uli Würfel

Freiburg Materials Research Center (FMF), Stefan-Meier-Strasse 21, 79104 Freiburg, Germany and Fraunhofer Institute
for Solar Energy Systems (ISE), Heidenhofstrasse 2, 79110 Freiburg, Germany
(Received 28 June 2012; published 23 August 2012)
This work reports on two different approaches to simulate bulk-heterojunction organic solar cells (BHJ OSCs).
The first is a one-dimensional (1D) description which is based on one effective semiconductor and the second is a
two-dimensional model (2D) explicitly taking into account both the donor and the acceptor phase. A comparison
between the two models is drawn and the influence of either p or n doping on the photovoltaic performance
is investigated in detail. Slight differences in the results of the two models are explained with the underlying
geometry and it is shown that many features can already be well described with the 1D effective semiconductor
model. The influence of doping donor and acceptor phase independently can only be described with the 2D
donor/acceptor model. The results indicate that this can be very beneficial for BHJ OSCs. The reason is that
upon doping both phases the depletion zone is centered around the donor/acceptor interface and regions of high
conductivity are formed in the bulk of the phases, i.e., farthest away from the donor/acceptor interface where
charge carriers can recombine. This leads to a reduction of the transport resistance and thus to a significant
increase in fill factor. This effect does not occur in a solar cell made of one material only. It is based on the fact
that a BHJ OSC is a majority carrier device.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.075315 PACS number(s): 88.40.jr, 88.40.hj, 88.40.fc

I. INTRODUCTION this beneficial effect is accompanied by a reduction of the

Organic solar cells (OSCs) are a topic of intense research
as they offer the possibility to be produced at a low price and
possess remarkable properties such as low weight, flexibility,
tunable color, and sometimes even semitransparency. By now
the efficiency record has exceeded 10%.1 Most of the organic
semiconductors used for photovoltaic energy conversion pos-
sess a rather strong exciton binding energy and a short exciton
diffusion length, which is why a donor/acceptor system is
used to achieve a dissociation of the excitons into free charge
carriers.2–5 The most prominent architecture is hereby the
bulk heterojunction (BHJ), a closely intermixed bicontinuous
network of donor and acceptor components, allowing for an
efficient exciton dissociation while still offering continuous
percolation pathways for the free charge carriers toward the
respective electrodes.6 The morphology of the photoactive
layer is thus crucial for the performance of OSCs. The
determination and control of a favorable morphology is a
difficult task, as it depends on many parameters. For polymeric
OSCs, for example, it depends on the materials used for
the active layer, the solvent, the deposition method of the
photoactive layer, the material of the electrodes, possible
pretreatments, and many more.7–9
BHJ OSCs often exhibit significantly lower fill factors than
their inorganic counterparts. This arises predominantly from
the fact that the charge-carrier transport in the photoactive
organic materials is limited as a consequence of several
orders of magnitude lower charge-carrier mobilities compared
to, e.g., crystalline silicon. The conductivity of the organic
materials, i.e., the product of mobility and charge-carrier
density, thus sets a limitation for the photovoltaic performance.
One way to increase the conductivity is to raise the charge-
carrier concentration by doping. In solar cells where electrons
and holes have to be transported through the same material,
minority carrier lifetime. A BHJ OSC can be seen as a majority
carrier device with electrons being restricted to the acceptor
phase and holes to the donor phase. Recombination of charge
carriers thus only occurs at the interfacial region between the
two components. For this reason the reduction of the lifetime
of the minority carriers by doping is not expected to have a
considerable impact as there are hardly any minority carriers,
i.e., electrons in the donor and holes in the acceptor phase.
In addition it is in principle possible to dope independently
the donor and acceptor phase. The charge-carrier transport
in BHJ-OSCs should therefore benefit from doping without
creating a new limitation due to a reduction of the minority
carrier lifetime. Here we report on the investigation of doping
using numerical simulations.
Electrical simulations are a highly valuable tool in de-
termining the key parameters for an efficient OSC. They
also provide an estimation of the maximum efficiency that
can be reached with a given material system and a specific
cell configuration and are irreplaceable to achieve a deeper
understanding of the underlying processes in the photovoltaic
device. Several methods and models exist for simulating OSCs.
These models cover specific aspects and often have to be
combined in order to obtain a broad picture of the relevant
processes in OSCs. A useful differentiation is hereby the scale
of the respective model. On the one side understanding, for
example, the intra- and intermolecular transport of excitons in
detail requires a description on the molecular scale.10,11 On the
other side, complete organic solar cells are often modeled on
the scale of the device, which is orders of magnitude larger.
Often this type of simulation is done either by performing
Monte Carlo calculations or by using a continuum drift
diffusion model.11–14 In the latter approach the complex
morphology of a donor-acceptor blend is often neglected
by using one effective semiconductor (referred to as the ES

1098-0121/2012/86(7)/075315(13) 075315-1 ©2012 American Physical Society

FELIX FLORIAN STELZL AND ULI WÜRFEL
model in the following). Effects that arise from morphological
circumstances or processes on the molecular scale can be taken
into account using effective parameters for the effective semi-
conductor such as effective mobility, band gap, or density of
states.13–15 Although rather simple, this approach is successful
in the description of OSCs as even transient experiments can
be described and predicted.15,16 However, excitonic processes
cannot be described using the effective-medium approach
as no specific morphology dependent interfaces between the
donor and acceptor phase exist. Furthermore, the transport of
the charge carriers toward the respective contact and their
recombination depend on the morphology. Extending the
ES model into a more sophisticated one with an explicit
consideration of donor and acceptor phase (D/A model) is thus
necessary. Recently Ray and co-workers reported about such a
model.17–19 They also included a phase field approach in order
to simulate the evolution of the random BHJ morphology.
Doping of the photoactive material in BHJ OSCs is a so far
rather seldomly investigated topic. Experimentally, controlled
doping of OSCs is currently achieved by the introduction
of dopants into the photoactive material, for example, by
coevaporation in the case of vacuum-processed OSCs being
composed of small molecules or by mixing the dopant into the
blend solution in the case of solution processed OSCs.20–22
Gregg and co-workers showed that doping of conjugated
polymers arises not only from the incorporation of dopants,
but also from charged defects in the polymer itself.23–26 They
distinguish between covalent and noncovalent defects, which
both can lead to either a p- or n-doping effect. Only few
publications exist examining the influence of doping on the
performance of OSCs by electrical simulations. Trukhanov
et al. investigated the effect of doping on both BHJ and
bilayer cells.27 While they used a D/A model for the bilayer
setup, they mimicked the BHJ cell using the ES-model
approach, thus being only able to investigate the effect of
either p- or n-type doping on the performance of BHJ-OSCs
as the simultaneous p- and n-type doping of the very same
semiconductor counterbalances, leading effectively only to
one type of doping.
Of course it has to be considered that doping introduces an
electric field, changes the charge-carrier distribution, and leads
to conductivity variations perpendicular to the donor/acceptor
interface. In this paper we will address these issues in detail.
We created an ES model and extended it to a D/A model,
similar to Ray and co-workers, and examined the influence of
doping and mobility on the performance of the solar cell with
both models. When taking the two phases of the photoactive
layer explicitly into account (D/A model) it becomes possible
to examine the effect of independently doping both the donor
and acceptor phase.
II. SIMULATION MODELS
A. ES model
The ES model mimics the BHJ as one effective semicon-
ductor, in which the electron transport level (ETL) corresponds
to the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of the
acceptor and the hole transport level (HTL) to the highest occu-
pied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the donor. Figure 1 depicts
075315-2
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)
donor phase EVac
h-cont.
3.6
ETL 3.8
Energy [eV]
l Effective
semiconductor HTL 4.9
5.1
e-cont.
h-cont.
Effective
e-cont. semiconductor
acceptor phase
(a) (b) (c)
FIG. 1. (Color online) Scheme of the ES model. (a) Schematic
setup of a BHJ-OSC. (b) Simplification of the morphology using the
ES model. (c) Diagram with the energetic positions of ETL, HTL,
and the contacts.
the geometric representation of the device and the associated
energy levels in the ES model. It shall be noted that the absolute
positions of the energy levels is not of any relevance, but only
their relative position to each other. In this work the simulation
parameters (for both models) are chosen to represent organic
solar cells composed of poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) mixed
with [6, 6]-phenyl-C61 butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM).14,28
However, the findings presented here are not restricted to OSCs
composed of conjugated polymers and fullerene derivatives,
but should also apply for OSCs composed of small molecules
or polymer:polymer cells.
For better readability the relevant equations, which will be
addressed in the following, are listed in Table I. The respective
variables and their meanings are listed in Table II. A uniform
generation of free unbound electron-hole pairs is applied over
the whole effective semiconductor. The value for this genera-
tion rate is chosen such that the generated photocurrent density
l
amounts to e0 0 Geff (x) dx ≈ 11 mAcm−2 , which is a reason-
able value for P3HT:PCBM cells under AM1.5G illumination
conditions.29 The transport of electrons and holes is simulated
by solving the Poisson equation [Eq. (1)] and the electron
and hole continuity equations [Eq. (2)] together with a drift-
diffusion formalism [Eq. (3)]. Recombination of free charge
carriers (bimolecular) is considered in Eq. (4). The value of
the recombination coefficient kr is set to 1.01 × 10−12 cm3 s−1
leading to open circuit voltages of approximately 650 mV,
again a good value in experiments with P3HT:PCBM solar
cells under simulated AM1.5G illumination conditions. Fermi
statistics is used throughout the whole simulated device
[Eqs. (5) and (6)] except for the equilibrium carrier concen-
tration at the contacts where Boltzmann statistics apply. The
electrodes are treated as Schottky contacts with a potential
barrier B = W − χ , where W is the contact work function
and χ is the electron affinity of the adjacent semiconductor.
The respective boundary conditions are given in Eqs. (7)–(11).
Outer boundaries of the photovoltaic device which are not
serving as contacts such as the left and right side in Fig. 1(b)
are treated with ideal Neumann boundary conditions; see
Eqs. (12) and (13).
The simulations are performed by solving the above-
mentioned equations self-consistently with a finite volume
MODELING THE INFLUENCE OF DOPING ON THE . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

TABLE I. Simulation equations.

Description Equation

ES model and D/A model:

Poisson equation ∇ · (∇φ) = −e0 (nh − ne + ND − NA ) (1)
Continuity equation ∇ Je,h = ±e0 Rnet ± e0 ∂ne,h /∂t (2)
Drift-diffusion equation Je,h = −ne,h e0 μe,h ∇e,h (3)
Recombination equation Rnet = kr · (ne nh − n2i ) (4)
Fermi statistic for electrons ne = NETL F1/2 [(EF,e − ELUMO )/(kT )] (5)
Fermi statistic for holes nh = NHTL F1/2 [(EHOMO − EF,h )/(kT )] (6)
Schottky contact boundary conditions φ = φF − B + kT /e0 ln(NETL /ni ) (7)
Je n̂ = e0 νe (ne − nBe,0 ) (8)

Jh n̂ = −e0 νh (nh − nBh,0 ) (9)
ne,0 = NETL exp[−(e0 B )/(kT )]
B
(10)
nBh,0 = NHTL exp[(−EG + e0 B )/(kT )] (11)
Ideal Neumann boundary conditions ∇φ = 0 (12)
Je · n̂ = 0 (13)
Jh · n̂ = 0 (14)
Only D/A model:
eq
Exciton continuity equation ∂nex /∂t = Gex + Dex ∇ · ∇nex − (nex − nex )/τex − Rdiss (15)

method for a range of given voltages applied to the contacts.
This way a J -V curve is obtained and the spatial information
about all the variables of the respective equations can be
extracted. The simulations were carried out with the com-
mercial semiconductor simulation tool Sentaurus Device from
Synopsys.30 From the simulated J -V curves the solar cell
characteristics like open circuit voltage, short circuit current
density, and fill factor are extracted. The efficiency is calcu-
lated assuming an illumination intensity of 100 mW cm−2 . The
standard simulation parameters are given in Table III. These
values apply, if not stated otherwise.
B. D/A model
To include morphology dependent effects the ES model is
extended into a donor/acceptor model (D/A model). Hereby
both donor and acceptor are modeled as individual semicon-
ducting phases with individual LUMO and HOMO levels.
The area where both phases are adjacent to each other is
modeled as a thin, finite volume composed of a third type
of semiconductor. This volume is referred to as the interfacial
layer (IL) and is given the HOMO of the donor as the hole
transport level and the LUMO of the acceptor as the transport
level for the electrons. It serves as an auxiliary material, in
which exciton dissociation and bimolecular recombination of
free charge carriers takes place. The IL was incorporated
for the following reasons: As the relevant processes would
require a quantum-mechanical description it is questionable
whether a boundary between donor and acceptor phase can
be described as a sharp interface. Both phases consist of
molecules with a certain extension of their orbitals which will
lead to a distorted, enlarged boundary between the two phases,

TABLE II. Variables.

Symbol Variable Symbol Variable

Gex exciton generation rate μe,h electron/hole mobility

nex exciton density σe,h electron/hole conductivity
eq
nex exciton equilibrium density e,h electron/hole quasi-Fermi potential
Lex exciton diffusion length NETL,HTL effective density of states
τex exciton lifetime F1/2 Fermi integral of order 1/2
Dex exciton diffusion coefficient EF,e,h quasi-Fermi energy electrons/holes
Rdiss exciton dissociation rate ELUMO energy of lowest unoccupied molecular orbital
 electrical permittivity EHOMO energy of highest occupied molecular orbital
φ electrostatic potential T temperature
e0 elementary electronic charge φF Fermi potential at contact
ne,h electron/hole density B barrier height at contact
ND concentration of ionized donors ni intrinsic charge-carrier density
NA concentration of ionized acceptors νe,h electron/hole recombination velocity
Je/ h electron/hole current density nBe,0 equilibrium density electrons
Rnet recombination coefficient nBh,0 equilibrium density holes
kr recombination coefficient EG band gap
n̂ normal unit vector μ̃ chemical potential

075315-3
FELIX FLORIAN STELZL AND ULI WÜRFEL PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

TABLE III. Simulation Parameters

Parameter Symbol Value/Unit

ES model:
Active layer thickness l 100 nm
Electron transport level (LUMO of acceptor) ETL 3.8 eV
Hole transport level (HOMO of donor) HTL 4.9 eV
Electron contact work function Wel 3.6 eV
Hole contact work function Wh 5.1 eV
Effective density of states (ETL and HTL) NETL ,NHTL 5 × 1020 cm−3
Relative permittivity r 3.4
Electron/hole mobility μe,h 10−4 cm2 V−1 s−1
Generation rate of electron-hole pairs Geff 6.935 × 1021 cm−3 s−1
Bimolecular recombination coefficient kr 1.01 × 10−12 cm3 s−1
104 cm s−1
h/el
Surface recombination velocity νeh/el , νh
D/A model:
Active layer thickness l 100 nm
Donor phase diameter dD 9 nm
Acceptor phase diameter dA 9 nm
Interface layer diameter dIL 1 nm
Thickness of pure donor (acceptor) layer next to hole (electron) contact dSL 4.5 nm
Exciton lifetime τex 400 ps
Exciton diffusion length Lex 8.7 nm
Exciton diffusion coefficient Dex = L2ex /τex 1.81 × 10−3 cm2 s−1
Lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (donor) ELUMO (D) 2.8 eV
Highest occupied molecular orbital (donor) EHOMO (D) 4.9 eV
Lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (acceptor) ELUMO (A) 3.8 eV
Highest occupied molecular orbital (acceptor) EHOMO (A) 6.2 eV
Electron transport level (interfacial layer) EETL 3.8 eV
Hole transport level (interfacial layer) EHTL 4.9 eV
Electron contact work function Wel 3.6 eV
Hole contact work function Wh 5.1 eV
Effective density of states (all materials, LUMO and HOMO) NETL ,NHTL 5 × 1020 cm−3
Relative permittivity (all materials) r 3.4
Electron/hole mobility (all materials) μe,h 10−4 cm2 V−1 s−1
Exciton generation rate (only in donor) Gex 1.5225 × 1022 cm−3 s−1
Bimolecular recombination coefficient kr 1.01 × 10−11 cm3 s−1
104 cm s−1
h/el
Surface recombination velocity νeh/el , νh

depending as well on the intermixing of the molecules.31 In
addition, excitons do also possess a certain extension, which
is often neglected in numerical simulations, where excitons
are treated as dotlike quasiparticles. Guo et al. even showed
by transient absorption spectroscopy that singlet excitons
being excited in a distance shorter than their delocalization
radius (6.7 nm in crystalline RR-P3HT and 4.3 nm in
amorphous RRa-P3HT) dissociate much faster than when first
having to move to the interface.32,33 Introducing an IL with
a finite thickness can therefore compensate for the dotlike
exciton simplification. The simulated photovoltaic device is
represented in Fig. 2 together with a schematic visualization of
the relevant processes and the corresponding energy scheme
of the materials and contacts. We chose an idealized BHJ
morphology for our simulations with the D/A model. As can
be seen in Fig. 2(c) an injection of electrons (holes) from the
IL into the donor (acceptor) is strongly suppressed due to a
large energy barrier of 1 eV.
The same equations as in the ES model are solved self-
consistently for the D/A model, with the addition of the exciton
continuity equation [see Eq. (15)]. It covers exciton generation,
diffusion, dissociation, and their decay throughout the device.
Whereas in the ES model the absorption of photons generates
electrons and holes directly, in the D/A model excitons are
created. The generation rate of the excitons, Gex , is nonzero
only in the donor phase where it has a constant value. It would
also be possible to generate excitons in the acceptor phase
and to incorporate a position dependent generation profile.
For reasons of simplicity we neglected this but all the findings
presented here are equally valid without this simplification.
Exciton diffusion is determined by the diffusion coefficient
Dex = L2ex /τex , depending on the diffusion length Lex and
lifetime τex . The last term in Eq. (15), Rdiss , is the exciton
dissociation into free electrons and holes, which occurs in our
model only in the IL. Every exciton in the IL is immediately
dissociated into free charge carriers (dissociation rate of unity).
Field dependent exciton dissociation and charge-transfer states
are not included.34 The value for Gex is set such that the integral
over the effective generation of electrons and holes in the
IL yields again approximately 11 mA cm−2 if not otherwise
stated. This way both simulation models have comparable cur-
rent densities for the standard parameter set listed in Table III.

075315-4
MODELING THE INFLUENCE OF DOPING ON THE . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

h-cont. dSL interfacial and the pure donor (acceptor) layer next to the hole (electron)
Acceptor EVac layer contact was kept constant at dIL = 1 nm and dSL = 4.5 nm,
1
4 dA/2 respectively. The results are qualitatively comparable to Ray
and co-workers.18,19 Apparently the introduction of the IL
y-position

dA dD

Energy [eV]
l 2 3 does not alter the general findings. Larger phase diameters
4 lead to an increase of the fraction of excitons which decay

h-cont.

dD/2 dIL
Donor
x-position
dSL e-cont.
interfacial layer
(a) (b)
FIG. 2. (Color online) Scheme of the D/A model. (a) Idealistic
morphology of an OSC. (b) Symmetry element and schematic
visualization of the relevant processes. (1) Excitons are created
upon absorption of photons in donor phase. (2) Excitons diffuse and
eventually reach the interfacial layer or decay. (3) Excitons dissociate
into electrons and holes in the IL. (4) Charge carriers are transported
in their respective phase (electrons in acceptor and holes in donor) and
are collected at respective contact or recombine in interfacial layer
(not shown). (c) Energetic scheme of the respective phases together
with the standard values for the simulations. As the electrodes can be
in contact with all materials (donor, acceptor, and IL), a white space
is drawn between the electrodes and the photoactive region.
In the following the here-presented D/A model is compared
with a similar model developed by Ray et al.18 A major
difference of our D/A model is the introduction of the IL
as has been explained above.
Figure 3 shows the solar cell characteristics as a function
of the diameter of the donor and acceptor phase in the
configuration depicted in Fig. 2(b). The diffusion length of
the excitons was not changed and the extensions of the IL
e-cont.
in the bulk of the donor phase. As a consequence the short
donor accep. circuit current density decreases. At the same time a larger
phase diameter leads to a larger amount of excitons that are
dissociated in the IL thus corresponding to a higher generation
(c) rate of free charges in the IL. This is a consequence of
the smaller donor-acceptor interface to volume ratio. As the
recombination coefficient in the IL is kept constant, this raises
the open circuit voltage which is consistent with the findings of
other groups.12,18,19,35 The fill factor increases with larger dD/A
as the transport volume for the charge carriers is increased. For
the given parameters the efficiency peaks at 7 nm. For shorter
phase diameters it decreases due to losses in VOC and F F and
for larger phase diameters due to losses in JSC . In summary,
the D/A model presented here is well in accordance with what
was reported in the literature.
III. EVALUATION OF THE SIMULATION MODELS
A. ES model vs D/A model
Before discussing the simulation results of both the ES and
D/A model in detail we compare the two models with each
other. The ES model is widely used throughout the organic
solar cell community.13–16,27,36,37 Though simplifying the
morphology of the active layer, many factors influencing the
properties of OSCs can be derived and the results often match
the experimental observations reasonably well. The transport
of charge carriers is described with effective parameters,

(b)
(a)

(c) (d)

FIG. 3. D/A model: Solar cell characteristics versus the diameter of the donor and acceptor phase. (a) Open-circuit voltage VOC .
(b) Short-circuit current density JSC . (c) Fill factor. (d) Efficiency. The simulated geometry is depicted in Fig. 2(b).

075315-5
FELIX FLORIAN STELZL AND ULI WÜRFEL PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

(a) (b) (c)

FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) J -V curves for the two simulation models. (b) ES model: spatial distribution of the density of electrons (ne ,
squares) and holes (nh , circles) under illumination at short-circuit conditions without doping. The hole contact is located at y = 0 nm, and the
electron contact at y = 100 nm. (c) As before but for the D/A model. The simulation geometry presented in Fig. 2(b) is used and also drawn at
the floor of the graph. Please note the different scalings for the x and y axis. For both models the standard parameters given in Table III apply.

e.g., effective charge-carrier mobilities and effective band
gap. Impacts that arise from the morphology of the BHJ
such as a high degree of phase separation or a very fine
intermixing of donor and acceptor have to be mimicked with
these effective parameters. For example, an increasing degree
of phase separation will (in the experiment) eventually lead
to more crystalline domains and the formation of percolation
pathways but also to a reduced electron-hole pair generation,
as not all of the photogenerated excitons will be dissociated
due to their limited diffusion length.38–40 In the ES model
this effect could be considered by a decreased generation
rate of electron-hole pairs and would lead, among other
things, to an increase in fill factor as fewer charge carriers
have to be transported to the electrodes. Likewise a very
fine intermixing of both phases is expected to result in a
high exciton dissociation efficiency but also in a higher
recombination of electrons and holes due to an enlarged
interface between donor and acceptor. In the ES model this
could be accounted for by increasing the recombination
coefficient which in turn leads to a decrease in the fill factor. It
is therefore possible to fit (experimentally) measured current
density-voltage characteristics, but the obtained parameters are
still effective and not intrinsic material properties.
In the D/A model the morphology is explicitly modeled
and excitonic effects are included. It is important to note that
the generation and recombination of electrons and holes is
restricted to the IL. In contrast both types of charge carriers
can be transported in the IL as well as in the donor or acceptor
phase, respectively. But, as was discussed above, the transfer
of electrons (holes) from the IL into the donor (acceptor) is
strongly suppressed due to the large energetic barrier. For this
reason the donor and acceptor phase can be considered as pure
majority carrier materials. Thus a striking difference between
the two models is the fact that in the D/A model there is a
“passive” transport volume, namely the donor and acceptor
phase, where no generation of electrons and holes and hardly
any recombination occurs.
If the size of the pure donor and acceptor phases (dD and dA )
in the D/A model is smaller than the exciton diffusion length,
almost all photogenerated excitons will dissociate into free
charge carriers in the IL. Within the IL, the resulting effective
generation rate for electron and hole pairs is then considerably
higher compared to the generation rate in the ES model (where
the generation rate is distributed over a larger volume). As we
set the total number of generated charge carriers in the cell to
the same value for both models, this leads to an increase of
the generation rate in the IL which is proportional to the ratio
of the total volume (i.e., donor, acceptor, and IL volume) to
the IL volume, here referred to as γ (for dD = dA = 9 nm and
dIL = 1 nm, γ = 10). In order to obtain the same value for
VOC as in the ES model the recombination coefficient in the IL
is also increased by the factor γ .
For the morphology shown in Fig. 2(b) the distributions of
the electron and hole density in the undoped semiconductor(s)
under short-circuit conditions are plotted for both models in
Fig. 4. As can be seen, they are strongly influenced by the
distance to the contacts, i.e., the y direction and—in the case
of the D/A model—hardly by the relative position to the IL,
i.e., in the x direction.
Though generation of electrons and holes in the D/A model
only occurs in the IL, the acceptor (donor) phase will be
filled with electrons (holes) as they diffuse in from the IL.
As a result an electrical potential difference will be built
up which represents a driving force for the charge carriers
from their respective phase toward the IL. In the steady state
under illumination and short-circuit conditions the electrons
(holes) are transported toward the electrodes in the IL as
well as in the acceptor (donor) phase. Due to the small
distance that (some of) the charge carriers are transported
in the x direction there is only a small driving force, i.e., a
concentration gradient related to it. For this reason almost no
gradient in the electron (hole) density between the acceptor
(donor) layer and the IL (perpendicular to the donor/acceptor
interface, i.e., in the x direction) is visible in Fig. 4(c). As the
mobility is set constant, Fig. 4(c) can also be considered as a
plot of the spatial conductivity. It is evident from Fig. 4 that the
two simulation models yield comparable results. In the D/A
model the quasi-Fermi levels for electrons and holes under
short-circuit conditions are almost flat perpendicular to the
interface between donor and acceptor phase, but possess strong
gradients toward the electrodes. The corresponding plot of the
energy levels for both simulation models under illumination

075315-6
MODELING THE INFLUENCE OF DOPING ON THE . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

at short-circuit conditions can be found in the Supplemental D/A model. Using the same argument as above for the lower
Material.41 limit it can be concluded that the F F will be lower for the D/A
A striking difference between the two models is the lower model even in its upper limit.
fill factor for the D/A model (F FD/A = 62.3%) compared to The real case for the D/A model will be somewhere in
the ES model (F FES = 69.7%) as can be seen in Fig. 4. This between the lower and the upper limit. As the charge carriers
has to do with the higher recombination coefficient for the IL are only generated within the IL, there has to be a (small)
in the D/A model. In order to explain the effect we will discuss driving force for them to be transported into the pure phases.
the upper and lower limit for the fill factor (F F ) in the D/A This can be expressed as a condition for the quasi-Fermi levels
model. in the direction perpendicular to the interfaces: EF,e (IL) >
(1) The lower limit would be the case when all the EF,e (acceptor) and EF,h (IL) < EF,h (donor). The difference
charge carriers were transported solely in the IL. This would in fill factor between the two models becomes more (less)
correspond to the ES model with both the generation rate and pronounced when decreasing (increasing) the charge-carrier
the recombination coefficient increased by the factor γ . The mobilities and when increasing (decreasing) the illumination
electron (particle) current density is proportional to the product intensity.
of the electron conductivity and the gradient of the quasi-Fermi
level of electrons: je = −σe ∇EF,e /e0 . For the holes it is jh = IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
σh ∇EF,h /e0 . Therein, σe,h = e0 ne,h μe,h is the conductivity
of the electrons and holes, respectively. Because of the finite A. ES model
conductivity for electrons and holes inside the photoactive 1. Influence of doping
layer gradients of the quasi-Fermi levels will be built up and, as
Figure 5(a) shows the impact of p doping on the solar cell
a consequence, a (position-dependent) separation of the quasi-
performance for the ES model. Please note that throughout
Fermi levels. This separation represents an internal voltage
Vint (x,y) according to e0 Vint (x,y) = EF,e (x,y) − EF,h (x,y)
which depends on the amount of charge carriers to be
transported and their mobility. Because of the rather low
mobilities in the photoactive layers of organic solar cells the
gradients and hence the separation of the quasi-Fermi levels
can be quite large even under external short-circuit conditions.
On the other hand, any separation of the quasi-Fermi levels
will lead to recombination according to
R(x,y) ∝ exp{[EF,e (x,y) − EF,h (x,y)]/kT } (16)
which reduces the current. If the generation rate is now
increased (by a factor of γ ), more charge carriers have to
be transported, the separation of the quasi-Fermi levels will
be larger, and hence more recombination will occur. When in
addition the recombination coefficient is also increased by the
same factor (as it was set to achieve the same open circuit
voltage as in the ES model) this effect becomes even more
pronounced. Thus for any given voltage V at the contacts with
0 < V < VOC a larger fraction of the generated charge carriers
will recombine in the D/A model due to the higher generation
rate and the higher recombination coefficient. As we adjusted
the generation rates for both models such that for the standard
parameter set JSC ≈ 11 mA/cm2 , this means that the F F will
be lower for the D/A model.
(2) The upper limit for the F F in the D/A model (no doping)
would be the case when the transport of charge carriers took
place homogeneously in the whole available volume, i.e., for
electrons in the IL and the pure acceptor phase and for holes
in the IL and the pure donor phase. It was already discussed
above that due to the large energy barriers no electrons (holes)
will be transferred from the IL to the donor (acceptor). As the
available volume is smaller compared to the ES model (where FIG. 5. (Color online) ES model: (a) Simulated J -V curves for
all the volume is accessible for both types of charge carriers) different p-doping concentrations. (b) Distribution of the relative
equal currents would correspond to significantly higher current recombination rate R/G (in %) for undoped (filled squares) and
densities in the case of the D/A model. As this would require p-doped cells with NA = 1018 cm−3 (open circles) under illumination
a larger separation of the quasi-Fermi levels, which in turn at short-circuit conditions. The hole contact is located at y =
leads to more recombination, the total current (at any given 0 nm, the electron contact at y = 100 nm. For all curves μe,h =
external voltage V with 0 < V < VOC ) will be lower for the 10−4 cm2 /(V s).

075315-7
FELIX FLORIAN STELZL AND ULI WÜRFEL
this publication the given doping concentrations refer to fully
ionized dopants. It can be seen that JSC decreases strongly with
increasing doping concentration (both p- and n-type doping
deliver the same result). VOC remains constant and the value for
the F F is hardly affected. The reason for the unchanged VOC is
simple. If the only recombination mechanism is radiative (or
bimolecular) the recombination rate under illumination and
open circuit conditions equals the generation rate and is given
by
 
R = G = kr ne nh − n2i ≈ kr ne nh . (17)
As G is assumed not to change upon doping, the product ne nh
is also not changed. As the open circuit voltage is related to
the charge-carrier concentrations by
NETL NHTL
e0 VOC = EG − kT ln (18)
ne nh
it does not change when the product ne nh is constant.
Figure 5(b) shows the spatial distribution of the relative
recombination rate (percentage of generated charge carriers
which recombine) under short-circuit conditions for both
an undoped cell and a device doped with NA = 1018 cm−3 .
For the undoped cell the relative recombination rate is very
small—in total less than 1% of the generated charge carriers
recombine. The only considerable contribution is from the
regions in the vicinity of the contacts. This changes drastically
when the device is doped. For the shown case of p doping with
NA = 1018 cm−3 the recombination rate is almost as high as
the generation rate next to the hole contact and throughout
more than half of the device. Only those charge carriers which
are generated near the electron contact can be extracted.
As a consequence of Eq. (17) the electron concentration
under an open circuit is lower when the sample is p doped. For
the given case it is ne (VOC ) ≈ 8 × 1016 cm−3 in the undoped
cell and ne (VOC ) ≈ 7 × 1015 cm−3 in the cell being p doped
with NA = 1018 cm−3 . These values refer to the majority of
the cell volume, only in the proximity to the contacts the
concentrations are different due to the work functions of the
electrodes. On the other hand a mobility of 10−4 cm2 /(V s)−1
requires a rather high driving force for the transport of the
charge carriers, i.e., a gradient of their quasi-Fermi level. For
the p-doped sample there is a much higher concentration
of recombination partners for the electrons present. Their
accumulation, which is needed to build up the driving force
for their transport toward the electrodes, causes significantly
more recombination compared to the undoped case. For the
doped sample the charge-carrier concentrations in the region
next to the hole contact are almost identical under short-circuit
and open-circuit conditions. A plot of the corresponding
charge-carrier densities for the given case can be found in the
supplemental material.41 It should be noted that in our model it
is therefore not necessary to include a field-dependent exciton
dissociation in order to explain the decrease in JSC upon doping
as was done by Trukhanov et al.27 Even if the generation rate of
charge carriers is not reduced JSC decreases due to an enhanced
recombination rate.
075315-8
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)
FIG. 6. (Color online) ES model: Efficiency versus p-doping
concentration for several hole mobilities with a constant electron
mobility of μe = 10−4 cm2 /V s.
2. Variation of doping and mobility
It is known that the efficiency of OSCs is often limited
by a poor mobility of at least one type of charge carrier.
There are materials with promising properties such as strong
absorption or favorable HOMO and LUMO levels that show
rather poor charge-carrier mobilities.42,43 The efficiency is
then limited by both the F F and JSC . A plot of a series of
J -V curves with varying charge-carrier mobilities (equal and
unequal) can be found in the Supplemental Material.41 If the
mobilities are strongly differing the charge carrier with the
lower mobility requires a larger driving force which enhances
recombination as was discussed in detail above. In addition
the accumulation of that charge carrier can also suppress the
extraction of the other one due to space-charge effects thus
enhancing recombination further.44–46 It was shown above that
doping in the ES model leads to a decrease in performance
for equal charge-carrier mobilities. An interesting question is
therefore whether doping can improve or even compensate
transport limitations in the case of unequal mobilities by
raising the conductivity of the charge carrier with the lower
mobility. Could a low hole mobility, for example, be (partially)
compensated by p doping the donor phase in a BHJ OSC?
Figure 6 shows the efficiency plotted vs the p-doping
concentration for several hole mobilities, μh , with a con-
stant electron mobility μe = 10−4 cm2 /V s. Please note that
this is identical to the inverse case, i.e., keeping the hole
mobility at 10−4 cm2 /V s and varying the electron mobility
along with the n-doping concentration. If μh = μe , doping
decreases the efficiency, as was already shown in Fig. 5(a)
for μe = μh = 10−4 cm2 /(Vs). For lower values of μh , i.e.,
differing mobilities for electrons and holes, this changes. The
efficiency can then be increased by p doping. This effect
can be observed up to a certain doping concentration beyond
which the efficiency drops again. The doping concentration
at which the efficiency peaks is higher for larger differences
in the mobilities. This originates from an increase in JSC ,
and partially from an increase in F F . The corresponding
graphs for the two quantities can be found in the Supplemental
Material.41 Increasing the concentration of the charge carrier
with the lower mobility by doping has two consequences. On
the one side the conductivity of this charge carrier is enhanced.
On the other side the recombination rate will rise as more
MODELING THE INFLUENCE OF DOPING ON THE . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

recombination partners (for the charge carrier with the higher

mobility) are present. Although raising the concentration of the
low mobility charge carrier leads to an increase in performance
it is impossible to compensate the lower mobility completely.
High mobilities of both charge carriers will always lead to a
superior photovoltaic performance.47
It was shown by Schafferhans et al. and Seemann et al.
that doping can lead to a decrease of the performance of
BHJ OSCs.36,37 Both groups demonstrated by experimental
results together with simulations using an ES model that
for P3HT:PCBM BHJ OSCs oxygen doping decreases the
performance drastically. They also showed that oxygen doping
of P3HT decreases the charge-carrier mobility which adds
onto the already negative effect of doping due to an increase
in recombination. Recently it was experimentally shown
by Veysel Tunc et al. that molecular doping can improve
FIG. 7. (Color online) D/A model: Simulated J -V curves for
the efficiency of a solution processed BHJ OSC based on
different p-doping concentrations in the donor phase. The standard
a low-band-gap polymer and a fullerene derivative.22 The
parameters given in Table III apply.
improvement was an increase in JSC . The authors attributed
their findings to a slightly improved charge-carrier mobility
upon doping which they also had observed in field-effect throughout the bulk of the device. In summary, the influence
transistor measurements. The here presented results suggest of doping of one phase on the photovoltaic performance in the
that the observed effect could also be explained this way: D/A model is remarkably similar to the results obtained using
devices being limited by one charge-carrier mobility, for the ES model.
example for holes, benefit from additional p doping up to
a certain doping concentration. An additional increase in 2. Variation of doping and mobility
mobility is even more beneficial, but not mandatory, to observe The impact of the charge-carrier mobilities on the photo-
an increase in JSC , F F , and hence efficiency upon doping. voltaic performance in the D/A model without any doping
Please note that in our models the charge-carrier mobility is qualitatively very similar to the ES model. Corresponding
is set independent of the doping concentration. This way the J -V curves for both models can be found in the Supplemental
influence of each parameter can be determined independently, Material.41 Figure 8 shows the efficiency as a function of
especially as it is not clear if the charge-carrier mobility is the p-doping concentration in the donor phase for different
increased by doping (e.g., by a filling of trap states by the hole mobilities μh with a constant electron mobility μe =
dopant) or decreased, as is the case for oxygen doping.22,36,37,48 10−4 cm2 /V s analogous to Fig. 6.
As can be seen, p doping of the donor phase is only
B. D/A model beneficial for μh < μe . Like in the case of the ES model this
effect can be observed up to a certain doping concentration
1. Influence of doping
beyond which the efficiency drops again. The doping con-
In this section we discuss the influence of doping in the D/A centration at which the efficiency peaks is higher for larger
model. First we address the case of p doping the donor phase differences in the mobilities. The corresponding plots for the
(IL and acceptor phase are undoped). The opposite case (n F F and the JSC can be found in the Supplemental Material.41
doping the acceptor phase with undoped IL and donor phase)
yields the same results. Figure 7 shows simulated J -V curves
under illumination with different p-doping concentrations of
the donor phase. Beyond a doping concentration of NA =
1017 cm−3 a clear decrease of JSC can be seen whereas the
F F is hardly changed (VOC remains constant as was already
explained). The reason is that raising the hole concentration
in the donor phase by doping will also increase the hole
concentration in the IL due to diffusion (equilibrating the
electrochemical potential of the holes) already in the dark.
Therefore for a given electron concentration the recombination
rate will be higher as more recombination partners for the
electrons are present in the IL. This is analogous to the case
of p doping in the ES model discussed above. However, there
is a small difference, e.g., JSC for NA = 1018 cm−3 is slightly
higher for the D/A model compared to the ES model. This can
be explained by the fact that in the D/A model nh (IL) < NA FIG. 8. (Color online) D/A model: Efficiency versus p-doping
under short-circuit conditions as the doping was only applied concentration in the donor phase for different hole mobilities. For all
to the donor phase. In contrast in the ES model nh ≈ NA curves μe = 10−4 cm2 /V s.

075315-9
FELIX FLORIAN STELZL AND ULI WÜRFEL PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

Again a remarkable resemblance of the D/A model to the ES
model is found. Extending the ES model to the D/A model is
thus not mandatory for the investigation of the doping of one
component of the photoactive layer. This changes drastically if
the donor and acceptor phases are both doped (independently),
as will be shown in the next section.
3. Independent doping of donor and acceptor phase
The D/A model allows for doping of both the donor
and acceptor phase independent from each other. Only for
bilayer structures the influence of doping of the respective
layers was experimentally and theoretically described.27,49
It was concluded that doping bilayer OSCs with majority
carriers increases the electric field at the interface between
the donor and acceptor phase. Assuming the dissociation of
excitons being dependent on the electric field, such doping
is thus beneficial for the performance as more excitons will
be dissociated. However, in a BHJ OSC the orientations of
the donor/acceptor interfaces are randomly distributed and
the electric field imposed by the contacts is not necessarily
perpendicular to them but could even be opposed. For obvious
reasons only the case of p doping the donor phase and n
doping the acceptor phase will be presented here and doping
concentrations beyond 1019 cm−3 are not considered.
We have performed simulations where doping concen-
trations in the donor and acceptor phase were varied inde-
pendently from each other. Figures 9(a)–9(c) show contour
plots of JSC , fill factor, and efficiency as a function of p
doping the donor phase and n doping the acceptor phase.
As was shown [Eqs. (17) and (18)] the open-circuit voltage
VOC does not change upon doping for solely bimolecular
recombination. Each plot consists of 100 data points; the
space in between is interpolated. For colored plots please
see the Supplemental Material, as for some corresponding
J -V curves.41 It can be seen from Fig. 9(a) that the efficiency
can be enhanced upon doping but only for the case of equal
doping concentrations [the mobilities were set to μe,h =
10−4 cm2 /(V s)]. The gain in efficiency is almost only due to
an increase in fill factor. This is a consequence of an improved
charge-carrier transport which will be analyzed in detail below.
It can already be concluded that, for example, if the donor
phase is unintentionally p doped it will be beneficial to n
dope the acceptor phase as well.24–26 The doping concentration
required depends thereby on the ratio of the mobilities. The
efficiency begins to saturate when equally doping higher than
3 × 1018 cm−3 . Of course it can be expected that at this rather
high doping concentrations parameters like charge-carrier
mobility or exciton diffusion length change.23,50–52 This is not
considered in our study. In high-efficiency silicon solar cells,
for example, a considerable fraction of the photogenerated
charge carriers are lost via Auger recombination.53 Its rate
is given by RAug = ne nh (Ce ne + Ch nh ) with Ce,h being the
Auger recombination coefficients. Due to its proportionality
to the square of the majority charge-carrier concentration it
becomes significant for high doping concentrations. However,
in contrast to solar cells with the photoactive layer being
composed of a single material, recombination in BHJ OSCs

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

FIG. 9. (Color online) D/A model: (a)–(c) Contour plot of the solar cell characteristics (JSC , F F , and efficiency) as a function of the doping
concentrations NA in the donor phase and ND in the acceptor phase. The dots represent the calculated data points; the space in between is
interpolated. (d) Electron and hole conductivity over the distributed device where the donor phase is doped with NA = 1019 cm−3 and the
acceptor phase with ND = 1019 cm−3 under illumination at short-circuit conditions. The hole contact is located at y = 0 nm, the electron
contact at y = 100 nm. (e) Electron and hole (particle) currents for the same device and (f) for an undoped device. Please note that (e) and
(f) are 90◦ tilted with respect to Fig. 2(b). For all graphs the standard parameters listed in Table III apply.

075315-10
MODELING THE INFLUENCE OF DOPING ON THE . . .
occurs only at the interface between donor and acceptor phase
(apart from the surface recombination at the electrodes). As
will be shown, the concentrations of the charge carriers in
the IL is not increased by doping both phases with equal
concentrations. Therefore the rate of Auger recombination
is not expected to rise upon doping in the case of BHJ
OSCs. For this reason we could neglect the impact of Auger
recombination in the D/A model.
When p doping the donor phase and n doping the acceptor
phase charge carriers will be exchanged leading to a buildup
of a space-charge region like in any pn junction. The only dif-
ference to a conventional pn junction is the fact that electrons
(holes) can hardly enter the donor (acceptor) phase. But as
both charge carriers can enter the IL they recombine there with
each other until equilibrium (in the dark) is achieved which
corresponds to a constant Fermi level throughout the device.
The electron (hole) concentration is therefore the highest in the
pure acceptor (donor) phase at the largest distance from the IL
from where it decreases toward the IL where it is lowest at the
interface to the donor (acceptor). This situation hardly changes
at short-circuit conditions under illumination. Figure 9(d)
depicts the distribution of the conductivity of electrons and
holes (which is proportional to their concentration) for this
case. It can be seen that the conductivity increases by several
orders of magnitude in the x direction, i.e., perpendicular to
the donor/acceptor interface. Please note that the increase
in the y direction near the contacts (which are located at
y = 0 nm and y = 100 nm) is due to the work functions of the
electrodes. As a consequence the paths of the generated charge
carriers toward the respective electrodes change compared to
the undoped case. This is shown in Fig. 9(e) for the (particle)
currents of electrons and holes in a device with both donor and
acceptor being doped with 1019 cm−3 and in Fig. 9(f) for the
undoped device. In the doped device the conductivity of the
charge carriers increases strongly from the IL to the outermost
position in the pure phase (which in reality corresponds to
the middle of the respective pure phase in the x direction
as the symmetry element shown in Fig. 2 ends there). As
the charge carriers are transported along the path of the least
resistance they flow predominantly from the IL (where they
are generated) perpendicularly into the pure phase where they
are transported parallel to the junction toward the respective
electrode. As can be seen from Fig. 9(e), most of the charge
carriers are transported at maximum distance to the junction
as the conductivity is highest there. For this reason the driving
forces in the direction to the electrodes (y direction), i.e., the
corresponding differences EF,e and EF,h required are very
low in the pure phases. Before reaching the high conductivity
regions in the pure phases the charge carriers have to be
transported through a region with a rather low conductivity (the
IL and its close vicinity in the pure phases) but the extension of
that low-conductivity region is very small, i.e., 5 nm. Thus
there will also be no large EF,e for electrons and EF,h
for holes along this path and therefore no large separation
EF,e − EF,h in the IL. As the rate of recombination, which only
occurs in the IL, is exponentially dependent on this separation
[see Eq. (16)] the recombination rate due to the transport of
charge carriers will be small and as a consequence the fill factor
will be large. In the undoped case there is no region with an
already high conductivity (i.e., one which is not due to charge
075315-11
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)
carriers that accumulate under illumination) and therefore the
charge carriers are transported in the direction to the electrodes
(y direction) in the IL as well as in the pure phases. This
can be seen in Fig. 9(f). As now they have to be transported
through the IL for a mean distance of approximately 50 nm, the
corresponding EF,e for electrons and EF,h for holes along
this path is significantly higher compared to the doped device.
As a consequence, the separation EF,e − EF,h is considerably
larger and the resulting higher recombination rate reduces the
fill factor.
As discussed above, the photovoltaic performance de-
creases for increasingly unbalanced mobilities of electrons and
holes. It was also already shown that raising the concentration
of the charge carrier with the lower mobility by doping
can improve the performance. A drawback of this method
is that at the same time the conductivity of the charge
carrier with the higher mobility is reduced. The possible
gain is therefore limited as can be seen from Fig. 8 where
for μe = 10−4 cm2 (V s)−1 and μh = 10−5 cm2 (V s)−1 the
efficiency increases from η = 2.35 % for the undoped case
to its maximum at η = 2.84 % when p doped with NA =
2.15 × 1017 cm−3 . When doping both phases independently
the efficiency can be further enhanced to η = 5.93 % for
NA = 1019 cm−3 and ND = 7 × 1018 cm−3 . For comparison,
the device with equal mobilities of μe,h = 10−4 cm2 (V s)−1
has an efficiency of η = 4.41 % when undoped and η = 6 %
when doped with NA = ND = 1019 cm−3 which corresponds
to the highest doping concentrations considered in this study.
This underlines that limitations due to low mobilities can
very well be overcome with doping donor and acceptor phase
independently. All data presented here for the D/A model is
based on the morphology shown in Fig. 2. We also performed
many of the calculations for a morphology without pure
phases next to the electrodes, thus corresponding to dSL = 0.
Although this leads to small differences due to the fact that the
interfacial layer is then in direct contact with both electrodes
the general findings remain unchanged.
V. CONCLUSION
This work reports on two different approaches to simulate
bulk-heterojunction organic solar cells (BHJ OSCs). The first
one is a one-dimensional description which is based on one
effective semiconductor (ES model) and the second one is
a two-dimensional model explicitly taking into account both
donor and acceptor phase and their morphology (D/A model).
Within the D/A model, generation and recombination of charge
carriers only take place at the donor/acceptor interface. The
models were compared with each other and with the results
obtained by other groups. For the same set of parameters the
fill factor is slightly lower in the D/A model. This could be
explained with the reduced available volume for the transport
of the charge carriers compared to the ES model where both
types of charge carriers can be transported in the whole device.
It was shown that effects that arise from one type of doping
and/or charge-carrier mobility limitations can already be well
described with the simple ES model. For a more detailed
investigation of the influence of doping on the performance
of BHJ OSC it is necessary to consider an individual doping
of both donor and acceptor phase. This can only be done with
FELIX FLORIAN STELZL AND ULI WÜRFEL
the D/A model. It was found that such doping can improve
the fill factor of BHJ OSC significantly as they are typically
(partially) limited due to a rather low mobility of one or
both types of charge carriers. The results were analyzed in
detail and it was shown that the gain in fill factor is due to a
reduced transport resistance. By n doping the acceptor phase
and p doping the donor phase a depletion zone is formed
at the donor/acceptor interface. Therefore the charge-carrier
concentration and thus both electron and hole conductivity
are rather low there. For this reason Auger recombination is
not expected to increase upon doping in contrast to silicon
solar cells, for example. Toward the bulk of the pure acceptor
(donor) phase the electron (hole) concentration and thus their
conductivity increases strongly. Most of the photogenerated
charge carriers are then transported toward the electrodes
* 20
felix.stelzl@fmf.uni-freiburg.de
1
M. A. Green, K. Emery, Y. Hishikawa, W. Warta, and E. D. Dunlop,
Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 20, 12 (2012).
2
N. S. Sariciftci, L. Smilowitz, A. J. Heeger, and F. Wudl, Science
258, 1474 (1992).
3
G. Yu and A. Heeger, J. Appl. Phys. 78, 4510 (1995).
4
J. J. M. Halls, C. A. Walsh, N. Greenham, E. A. Marseglia,
R. Friend, S. C. Moratti, and A. Holmes, Nature (London) 376,
498 (1995).
5 24
K. Yoshino, K. Tada, A. Fujii, E. Conwell, and A. Zakhidov, IEEE
Trans. Electron Dev. 44, 1315 (1997).
6 25
Y. M. Nam, J. Huh, and W. H. Jo, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 94,
1118 (2010).
7 27
R. Po, M. Maggini, and N. Camaioni, J. Phys. Chem. C 114, 695
(2010).
8 28
Y. Kim, Y. Lee, J. K. Kim, E.-O. Seo, E.-W. Lee, W. Lee, S.-H.
Han, and S.-H. Lee, Curr. Appl. Phys. 10, 985 (2010).
9 29
R. Steim, F. R. Kogler, and C. J. Brabec, J. Mater. Chem. 20, 2499
(2010).
10
T. Foerster, Ann. Phys. 2, 55 (1948).
11
J. Nelson, J. J. Kwiatkowski, J. Kirkpatrick, and J. M. Frost, Acc.
Chem. Res. 42, 1768 (2009).
12
P. K. Watkins, A. B. Walker, and G. L. B. Verschoor, Nano Lett. 5,
1814 (2005).
13
L. Koster, E. Smits, V. Mihailetchi, and P. Blom, Phys. Rev. B 72,
085205 (2005).
14
M. Glatthaar, M. Riede, N. Keegan, K. Sylvester-Hvid,
B. Zimmermann, M. Niggemann, A. Hinsch, and A. Gombert, Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91, 390 (2007).
15
R. C. I. MacKenzie, T. Kirchartz, G. F. A. Dibb, and J. Nelson,
J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 9806 (2011).
16
R. Hausermann, E. Knapp, M. Moos, N. A. Reinke, T. Flatz, and
B. Ruhstaller, J. Appl. Phys. 106, 104507 (2009).
17
B. Ray, P. R. Nair, R. E. Garcia, and M. A. Alam, in Electron
Devices Meeting (IEDM), 2009 IEEE International (Birck and NCN
Publications, Baltimore, MD, 2009), pp. 1–4.
18
B. Ray and M. A. Alam, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 99, 204
(2012).
19
B. Ray, M. S. Lundstrom, and M. A. Alam, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100,
013307 (2012).
075315-12
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)
within these high conductivity regions and the driving force
required for their transport is low. As a consequence less
charge carriers accumulate compared to the undoped case and
recombination at the donor/acceptor interface is reduced. It
shall be pointed out that this positive effect is not expected
to occur in solar cells with a photoactive layer composed of
a single material. It is based on the fact that a BHJ OSC is a
majority carrier device.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in the priority pro-
gram SPP1355 and the Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF) under Contract No. 03SF0331.
B. Maennig, M. Pfeiffer, A. Nollau, X. Zhou, K. Leo, and P. Simon,
Phys. Rev. B 64, 195208 (2001).
21
A. Nollau, M. Pfeiffer, T. Fritz, and K. Leo, J. Appl. Phys. 87, 4340
(2000).
22
A. Veysel Tunc, A. De Sio, D. Riedel, F. Deschler, E. Da
Como, J. Parisi, and E. von Hauff, Org. Electron. 13, 290
(2012).
23
D. Wang, N. Kopidakis, M. O. Reese, and B. A. Gregg, Chem.
Mater. 20, 6307 (2008).
B. A. Gregg, S.-G. Chen, and R. A. Cormier, Chem. Mater. 16,
4586 (2004).
B. A. Gregg, J. Phys. Chem. C 113, 5899 (2009).
26
B. A. Gregg, Soft Matter 5, 2985 (2009).
V. A. Trukhanov, V. V. Bruevich, and D. Y. Paraschuk, Phys. Rev.
B 84, 205318 (2011).
P. E. Shaw, A. Ruseckas, and I. D. W. Samuel, Adv. Mater. 20, 3516
(2008).
A. J. Moule and K. Meerholz, Appl. Phys. B 86, 721
(2007).
30
Synopsys, “Tcad sentaurus: Sentaurus device user guide, release
f-2011.09”, www.synopsys.com (2011).
31
J.-L. Bredas, J. E. Norton, J. Cornil, and V. Coropceanu, Acc. Chem.
Res. 42, 1691 (2009).
32
J. Guo, H. Ohkita, H. Benten, and S. Ito, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131,
16869 (2009).
33
J. Guo, H. Ohkita, H. Benten, and S. Ito, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132,
6154 (2010).
34
C. L. Braun, J. Chem. Phys. 80, 4157 (1984).
35
Y. Shang, Q. Li, L. Meng, D. Wang, and Z. Shuai, Appl. Phys. Lett.
97, 143511 (2010).
36
J. Schafferhans, A. Baumann, A. Wagenpfahl, C. Deibel, and V.
Dyakonov, Org. Electron. 11, 1693 (2010).
37
A. Seemann, T. Sauermann, C. Lungenschmied, O. Armbruster,
S. Bauer, H.-J. Egelhaaf, and J. Hauch, Sol. Energy 85, 1238
(2011).
38
T. Erb, U. Zhokhavets, G. Gobsch, S. Raleva, B. Stuhn, P.
Schilinsky, C. Waldauf, and C. J. Brabec, Adv. Funct. Mater. 15,
1193 (2005).
39
D. Chirvase, J. Parisi, J. Hummelen, and V. Dyakonov,
Nanotechnology 15, 1317 (2004).
MODELING THE INFLUENCE OF DOPING ON THE . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW B 86, 075315 (2012)

40 47
W. L. Ma, C. Y. Yang, X. Gong, K. Lee, and A. J. Heeger, Adv. L. M. Andersson, C. Muller, B. H. Badada, F. Zhang, U. Wurfel,
Funct. Mater. 15, 1617 (2005). and O. Inganas, J. Appl. Phys. 110, 024509 (2011).
41 48
See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/ Y. Zhang, B. de Boer, and P. W. M. Blom, Phys. Rev. B 81, 085201
10.1103/PhysRevB.86.075315 for additional figures. (2010).
42 49
L. Bian, E. Zhu, J. Tang, W. Tang, and F. Zhang, Prog. Polym. Sci. A. Liu, S. Zhao, S.-B. Rim, J. Wu, M. Koenemann, P. Erk, and
37, 1292 (2012). P. Peumans, Adv. Mater. 20, 1065 (2008).
43 50
H. S. Mangold, T. V. Richter, S. Link, U. Wuerfel, and S. Ludwigs, A. J. Ferguson, N. Kopidakis, S. E. Shaheen, and G. Rumbles, J.
J. Phys. Chem. B 116, 154 (2011). Phys. Chem. C 112, 9865 (2008).
44 51
V. Mihailetchi, J. Wildeman, and P. Blom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, Z. Liang, A. Nardes, D. Wang, J. J. Berry, and B. A. Gregg, Chem.
126602 (2005). Mater. 21, 4914 (2009).
45 52
A. M. Goodman and A. Rose, J. Appl. Phys. 42, 2823 (1971). Z. Liang and B. A. Gregg, Adv. Mater. 24, 3258 (2012).
46 53
M. M. Mandoc, L. J. A. Koster, and P. W. M. Blom, Appl. Phys. A. Richter, F. Werner, A. Cuevas, J. Schmidt, and S. W. Glunz, in
Lett. 90, 133504 (2007). Energy Procedia for SiliconPV (to be published).

075315-13