1

1 Article
2 Enhancing PV performance of
3 Al/ZnO/CdS/GaAs/NiO/Au solar cells through
4 diverse layer combinations by SCAPS-1D
5 Md. Salman Shah1, Md. Kamrul Hasan2, Sharat Chandra Barman3, Hayati Mamur4,
6 Mohammad Ruhul Amin Bhuiyan1,*

7 1
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Islamic University, Kushtia 7003, Bangladesh;
8 [email protected]
9 2
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Teesta University, Rangpur, Bangladesh; [email protected]
10 3
Postdoctoral Associate, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), KSA;
11 [email protected]
12 4
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa,
13 45140, Türkiye; [email protected]
14 * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +880-2-478853638

15 Abstract: The photovoltaic (PV) cell structure comprising Al/ZnO/CdS/GaAs/NiO/Au

16 was modeled using SCAPS-1D software. The device configuration includes a
17 transparent conductive oxide (TCO) window layer made of zinc oxide (ZnO), a
18 cadmium sulfide (CdS) buffer layer, and a gallium arsenide (GaAs) absorber layer.
19 Additionally, a nickel oxide (NiO) electron-reflecting hole transport layer (ER-HTL) is
20 incorporated between the absorber and the back metal contact. Aluminium (Al) and
21 gold (Au) are used as the top and back contact materials, respectively, ensuring layer
22 connectivity. To analyze the PV performance, various parameters were adjusted,
23 including the thickness of the absorber, buffer, and window layers, the acceptor
24 concentration in the absorber, the donor concentration in the buffer, as well as the
25 series and shunt resistances, and operating temperature. The PV performance was
26 evaluated based on the open-circuit voltage (VOC), short-circuit current density (JSC),
Citation: To be added by
27 fill factor (FF), and power conversion efficiency (PCE). Optimal performance was
editorial staff during
28 production.
achieved with an acceptor density of 10¹⁷ cm⁻³ and a donor density of 10¹⁸ cm⁻³ for
29 the absorber and buffer layers, respectively, paired with thicknesses of 50 nm for the
30 Academic Editor: Firstname window layer, 100 nm for the buffer layer, 2500 nm for the absorber layer, and 200
Lastname
31 nm for the ER-HTL. The optimized model exhibited a V OC of 1.0825 V, a JSC of
32 Received: date 31.423302 mA/cm², an FF of 87.43%, and a PCE of 29.74% under the AM1.5G
33 Revised: date spectrum. Additionally, it achieved a quantum efficiency of approximately 100% at -
34 Accepted: date visible wavelengths.
Published: date

Copyright: © 2024 by the

authors. Submitted for possible
open access publication under
the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license
(http://creativecommons.org/lic
enses/by/4.0/).
2
3 Solar 2024, 4, Firstpage–Lastpage. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/solar
 4 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 2
5

35 Keywords: SCAPS-1D; GaAs-based solar cells; Acceptor and donor densities; Short-
36 circuit current; Open-circuit voltage; Fill-factor, Efficiency
37

38 1. Introduction
39 Thin-film solar cells (TFSCs) based on gallium arsenide (GaAs) offer
40 remarkable performance and efficiency above traditional silicon-based solar
41 cells, marking a major advancement in photovoltaic (PV) technology. The
42 direct bandgap of GaAs, a III-V compound semiconductor, is 1.42 eV, almost
43 ideal for utilizing solar radiation for generating electricity. GaAs is able to
44 absorb and convert solar radiation more efficiently because of this bandgap's
45 good alignment with the solar spectrum, especially in the visible spectrum
46 [1]. In order to maximize energy conversion and improve the solar cells'
47 overall power conversion efficiency (PCE), this efficiency is important. The
48 ability of GaAs TFSCs to attain high efficiencies even with thin material
49 layers lowers production costs and material utilization, which is one of its
50 significant advantages [2]. In addition, GaAs solar cells have remarkable
51 resilience in harsh environmental circumstances, such as elevated
52 temperatures and intense solar radiation, making them appropriate for a
53 wide range of applications such as space exploration and other taxing
54 contexts [3]. GaAs's high electron mobility facilitates charge carrier mobility,
55 which reduces recombination losses and increases power output [4].
56
57 Despite these advantages, the toxicity of arsenic and the high cost of
58 manufacturing are problems for GaAs solar cells [5]. Higher charge carrier
59 recombination and reduced carrier separation efficiency can hinder the
60 performance of thicker photoactive layers [6]. Thin-film technology has been
61 developed to improve light absorption and efficiency while lowering
62 production costs and environmental impact in order to address these issues
63 [7]. The scalability and cost-effectiveness of GaAs thin-film solar cells have
64 been greatly improved by recent improvements in manufacturing processes
65 [8]. To significantly increase the PCE of GaAs solar cells, for example, layer
66 thicknesses, acceptor and donor densities, and operating conditions can all
67 be optimized [9]. GaAs-based solar cells have become increasingly efficient
68 as a result of the combination of advanced materials and innovative
69 modeling methods, including those provided by SCAPS-1D software [10].
70
71 In this work, a photovoltaic cell structure with the configuration
72 Al/ZnO/CdS/GaAs/NiO/Au is modeled using SCAPS-1D software. Nickel oxide
73 (NiO) serves as the electron-reflecting hole transport layer (ER-HTL) in this
74 model, which also contains a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) window
75 layer composed of zinc oxide (ZnO), a cadmium sulfide (CdS) buffer layer,
76 and a GaAs absorber layer. The materials used for the top and back contacts
77 are aluminum (Al) and gold (Au), respectively. The study aims to achieve
 6 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 3
7

78 optimal PV performance by varying factors such as layer thicknesses,

79 concentrations of donors and acceptors, and operating temperatures [11].
80
81 The overall goal of this research is to optimize these parameters and assess
82 how they affect significant performance parameters, including power
83 conversion efficiency (PCE), fill factor (FF), open-circuit voltage (V OC), and
84 short-circuit current density (JSC) [12]. Improvement in GaAs solar cell
85 technology and aid in the development of more economical and efficient
86 renewable energy sources are the main goals.
87
88
89 2. Materials and Methods
90 2.1. SCAPS-1D numerical simulation
91 The current research employed the SCAPS-1D software, developed at
92 the University of Gent in Belgium, to simulate the Al/ZnO/CdS/CdTe/Cu2O/Ni
93 TFSC[13]. This tool was utilized to investigate the impact of various factors
94 on crucial performance metrics. It is capable of solving the fundamental
95 equations regulating semiconductor carrier transport. Additionally, the
96 simulator considers the device's grades, inventions, and recombination
97 problems.

98 2.2. Structure of CdTe-based solar cell

99 The constructed design shown in Figure 1 is Al/ZnO/CdS/CdTe/Cu2O/Ni,
100 which includes CdTe as the absorber layer, CdS as the buffer layer, and ZnO
101 as the TCO window layer. These materials likely have important roles in the
102 function and performance of the structure, and their specific selection may
103 be based on their unique properties and compatibility with each other. The
104 optimization of the proposed structure is conducted in numerous stages.
105 Initially, the thickness of the absorber, buffer, and window layers is obtained
106 from published literature, and then it is modified. Likewise, acceptor density
107 and donor density are varied for optimization. The back metal contact, which
108 connects to the upper/top contact through Al, is also altered. In this study,
109 Ni is used as the back metal contact. Both the upper/top contact Al and the
110 back contact Ni provide a low-resistance electrical connection for the TFSC.
111 By reducing light reflection, the ZnO window layer serves as a TCO layer
112 and raises solar cell efficiency. Additionally, it enhances the CdTe absorber
113 layer's capacity to absorb light, which is what turns sunlight into electricity.
114 To create electron-hole pairs, the absorber layer interacts with the CdS
115 buffer layer. The back contact receives the electrons created by the absorber
116 layer, and the ER-HTL (Cu2O) transports the holes generated by the
117 absorber layer to it. The proposed Al/ZnO/CdS/CdTe/Cu 2O/Ni TFSC structure
118 has many benefits over previous commercial modules, including excellent
119 conversion efficiency.
 8 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 4
9

120
121 Figure 1. The CdTe-based TFSC structure is depicted schematically.

122 The equations below show the parameters of the solar cells used for this
123 study.

I MV M
124
FF= (1)
I sc V oc

Pmax V oc J sc FF
125 η= = (2)
P¿ Area P¿

126 In which P¿ represents the incident radiation intensity, V oc denotes the

127 open-circuit voltage, J sc represents the short-circuit current, FF stands for
128 the fill factor, and η is the power conversion efficiency (PCE). All the
129 physical properties, dimensions, and thicknesses that are used in this
130 investigation are supported by previous experimental investigations, which
131 are shown in Table 1, and interface parameters for CdS/CdTe are shown in
132 Table 2.
 10 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 5
11

133 Table 1. The simulation of the Al/ZnO/CdS/GaAs/NiO/Au-based solar cell utilized the
134 physical parameters of different layers [14],[15],[16] ,[17].

135

136

137

Parameters ZnO CdS GaAs NiO

Thickness (nm) 80 50 1400 200
Band gap, Eg (eV) 3.30 2.40 1.43 3.8
Electron affinity, χ (eV) 4.50 4.40 4.07 1.46
Dielectric Permittivity, εr 9.00 10 12.90 10.07
CB effective density of states, Nc (cm- 2.20×10 18
2.20×10 1
4.7×10 17
2.80×1019
3) 8

VB effective density of states, Nv (cm- 1.80×1019 1.80×101 9.0×1018 1.00×1019

3) 9

Electron thermal velocity, Vt-e (cm/s) 1.0×107 1.0×107 1.0×107 1.0×107

Hole thermal velocity, Vt-h (cm/s) 1.0×107 1.0×107 1.0×107 1.0×107
Electron mobility, µn (cm2V-1s-1) 100 100 8500 130
Hole mobility, µp (cm2V-1s-1) 25 25 400 56.7
Donor density, ND (cm-3) 1.0×10 18
1.0×10 18
--- ---
Acceptor density, NA (cm-3) --- --- 1.0×10 17
2.80×1019
Defect density, Nt (cm-3) 1.0×1015 1.0×1015 1.0×1015 1. 0×1015
138

139 Table 2. Interface parameters for NiO/GaAs/CdS

Parameters NiO/GaAs/CdS interface

Capture cross-section electrons (cm ) 2
1.0×10-19
Capture cross-section holes (cm2) 1.0×10-19
Energetic distribution Single
Reference for defect energy level Et above the highest Ev
The energy with respect to Reference (eV) 0.6
 12 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 6
13

Total density (integrated over all energies) (1/cm2) 1.0×1010

140 The calibration of the finalized device structure is a crucial step that
141 involves comparing the simulated results with experimental measurements,
142 using the design data presented in Table 1 of the published experimental
143 results. This calibration process ensures the accuracy and reliability of the
144 simulation model. In the present study, any discrepancies or deviations
145 between the simulated and experimental results are carefully examined and
146 addressed by aligning the simulated outcomes with the tabulated data
147 provided in the publication.

148 3. Results
149 3.1. Effects of absorber and buffer layer thickness
150 The performance of photovoltaic (PV) cells is significantly influenced by
151 the thickness of their absorber and buffer layers. The absorber layer,
152 responsible for capturing sunlight and converting it into electrical energy,
153 needs to be adequately thick to absorb enough light without being so thick
154 that it leads to excessive charge carrier recombination, which can reduce
155 efficiency. Conversely, the buffer layer, which is positioned between the
156 absorber and the electrode, plays a crucial role in aiding charge transfer and
157 minimizing recombination at the interface. An excessively thin buffer layer
158 may not effectively prevent recombination or support proper charge
159 movement, while a buffer layer that is too thick can introduce additional
160 resistance and hinder overall performance. Therefore, carefully optimizing
161 the thickness of both layers is vital to achieving the highest possible energy
162 conversion efficiency and ensuring the PV cells operate optimally.
 14 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 7
15

163

164 Figure 2. Effects of absorber and buffer layer thickness on PV performance.

165 The thicknesses of the layer of absorber, which vary from 0.40 to 4µm,
166 and the buffer layer, which vary from 0.05 to 0.25µm, can be examined to
167 provide a thorough evaluation of the functionality of the devices. The
168 absorber thickness is the main factor influencing performance, as indicated
169 by a Voc of 1.0825 V. At an absorber thickness of 2.5 µm, the standard Voc
170 value is attained. On the other hand, V oc rapidly decreases to about 1.0719 V
171 whenever the absorber's thickness is increased to 4 µm while the buffer
172 thickness remains unchanged. However, the V OC also falls and the Jsc peaks
 16 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 8
17

173 at levels greater than 31.427698 mA/cm2 when the absorber layer
174 thicknesses are more than 2.5 µm. There is a discernible drop in J sc when the
175 absorber thickness is decreased or the buffer depth is decreased beyond
176 these limits. When the absorber thickness exceeds 2.5 µm, the FF
177 progressively increases. When the buffer thickness hits 0.05µm, the FF
178 drops to 87.42%. It then stays almost constant until the buffer thickness
179 changes from 0.05 to 0.25 µm, at which point it starts to slightly decline.
180 When the thickness of the absorber is 2.5 µm and the buffer thickness is less
181 than 0.15 µm, the maximum PCE of 29.74% is seen. When the buffer
182 thickness grows or the absorber thickness falls, PCE significantly drops. The
183 absorber layer should have a thickness of 2.5 µm, and the buffer layer
184 should have a thickness of 0.05 µm in all cases. Similar behavior regarding
185 the absorber and buffer's effects on the PV performance of PSCs is also
186 shown in other papers [18].
187
188
189 3.2. Effects of absorber layer and HTL acceptor density
190 The performance of GaAs-based PSCs is profoundly affected by the
191 density of acceptors in the absorber layer and the HTL in the perovskite
192 structure. While adjusting these parameters, other factors are kept at their
193 optimal levels or as specified in Table 1. Figure 3 highlights the influence of
194 acceptor density on the PV performances of GaAs-based PSCs, particularly
195 focusing on the absorber layer and HTL.
196 Variations in the acceptor density of the absorber layer, ranging from
197 1015 to 1019 cm–3, significantly impact the PV parameters. As the acceptor
198 density increases, the following changes are observed: The V OC rises from
199 0.9729 to 1.1836 V, the JSC increases from 31.361689 to 31.443972 mA/cm2,
200 the FF increases from 85.9% to 86.96%, and the PCE improves from 26.21 to
201 32.36%. The highest PCE is achieved at an acceptor density of 1019 cm –3.
202 The acceptor density in the absorber layer affects its doping level and
203 charge carrier concentration. Higher acceptor densities result in increased
204 hole concentrations within the perovskite, which enhances its conductivity
205 and optical properties. Modulating the acceptor density can alter the band
206 structure of the absorber layer, potentially affecting its charge transport and
207 recombination rates. Increased acceptor density may improve hole
208 extraction from the perovskite layer, reducing recombination losses and
209 boosting device efficiency [19]. In this study, an acceptor density of 1019
210 cm–3 was found to be optimal, yielding a PCE of 32.36%.
 18 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 9
19

211

212 Figure 3. Effects of (a) absorber layer acceptor density and (b) HTL acceptor density on PV
213 performance.

214 The acceptor density of HTL was varied between 1017 and 1020 cm –3 to
215 examine its impact on PV parameters. As the acceptor density increased, all
216 PV parameters showed significant improvement, with the PCE rising from
217 29.74 to 30.09%. The acceptor density in HTL affects its hole conductivity
218 and Fermi level position. Higher acceptor densities lead to increased hole
219 concentration, enhancing charge transport properties and conductivity.
220 Modulating acceptor density influences the balance between hole extraction
221 and recombination in the HTL layer. Controlling the acceptor densities of
222 both the absorber layer and HTL allows for fine-tuning of charge transport,
223 extraction, and recombination processes. The absorber layer and HTL are
224 projected to have acceptor densities of 1017 and 1017 cm–3, respectively,
225 under optimal circumstances, with a PCE of 29.74%. Values above these
226 ranges increase device performance and compromise PV parameters.
 20 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 10
21

227 Moreover, excessively high acceptor densities can cause increased trap-
228 assisted recombination and reduced device functionality [20]. Optimal
229 acceptor density improves hole extraction efficiency from the perovskite
230 layer, enhancing charge collection and reducing losses. In all scenarios, an
231 absorber layer acceptor density of 1017 cm–3 and a HTL acceptor density of
232 1017 cm–3 are considered suitable. This optimization is crucial for achieving
233 high performance and stability in GaAs-based PSCs.

234 3.3. Impact of buffer layer and window layer donor density
235 The donor density in GaAs-based PSCs significantly influences various
236 PV characteristics, particularly in the buffer and window layers, as shown in
237 Figure 4. This study investigated donor densities ranging from 1014 to 1020
238 cm−3.

239

240 Figure 4. Impact of (a) buffer layer donor density and (b) window layer donor density on PV
241 parameters.
 22 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 11
23

242 Ideal donor densities improve the extraction of charge carriers and
243 minimize losses. The donor density directly impacts electron extraction and
244 transport in the buffer layer. Moreover, it affects the material's properties
245 and interface, thereby influencing the charge transport and extraction
246 efficiency in the buffer layer. Similarly, higher donor densities in the window
247 layer improve electron injection and transport towards the electrode, which
248 reduces recombination losses and enhances overall device performance.
249 Therefore, these densities are essential for efficient charge transport and
250 collection. Properly regulated donor densities in the Window layer ensure
251 favorable interface properties, such as reduced interface recombination,
252 enhanced device stability, and optimal energy level alignment. The ideal
253 donor density for the Window layer is 1016 cm−3; exceeding this range can
254 lead to device degradation and incorrect PV parameter execution by the
255 software. Therefore, precise control of donor density in both the buffer and
256 window layers is important for preserving long-term stability, optimizing PV
257 parameters, and enhancing the efficiency of GaAs-based PSCs. Adjusting
258 donor densities carefully is crucial for minimizing recombination losses,
259 improving device stability and efficiency, and maximizing charge transport.
260 Under ideal conditions, the donor density of a buffer layer is expected to be
261 1018 cm−3, as the PCE of 29.74% remains almost stable with an increment in
262 window donor density. Similar parameters for evaluating PSC performance
263 are explored in other studies [21].
264 3.4. Effect of series, shunt resistance, and temperature
265 The performance of PV cells in PSCs based on GaAs is significantly
266 influenced by shunt and series resistances. Figure 5 illustrates how
267 temperature, series, and shunt resistances affect the PV performances of the
268 PSC structures. The resistances play a crucial role in determining the
269 device's efficiency, thereby impacting its PCE. In Figure 5(a), series
270 resistance ranges from 0 to 5 -cm2. Series resistance, which stands for the
271 obstruction to current flow inside the components of the cell, is a
272 contributing cause to voltage losses, decreased FF, and J SC. As a result, high
273 series resistance lowers the output voltage and hinders charge extraction,
274 which lowers the PCE overall. Another study [22] has confirmed these
275 findings, which show that series resistance always has an effect on PSC
276 performance. On the other hand, the shunt resistance in Figure 5(b) ranges
277 from 10 to 107 -cm2. Shunt resistance is a sign of unintentional conductive
278 paths that avoid the active region. These pathways cause leakage currents,
279 which in turn affect the FF and V OC. Reduced voltage and fill factor cause
280 more current to leak, which lowers the PCE. This is caused by lower shunt
281 resistance. Therefore, optimizing both series and shunt resistances is
282 essential to maximizing the PCE of GaAs-based PSCs. To achieve best
283 performance, device engineering for manufacturing methods must pick the
284 necessary values. It is recommended that increasing shunt resistance and
285 lowering series resistance be priorities in this optimization.
 24 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 12
25

286

287 Figure 5. Impact of changes in (a) series resistance, (b) shunt resistance, and (c) temperature on PV
288 parameters.

289 The temperature range in Figure 5(c) is 300–420K. The effectiveness of

290 GaAs-based PSCs is highly dependent on temperature, which affects both
291 their overall PCE and PV properties. In general, the solar cell's electrical
292 characteristics fluctuate as a result of several processes, including chemical
293 and physical ones, being impacted by temperature. The carrier mobility and
294 recombination rates in the perovskite material are two important factors
295 that are impacted by temperature [23]. Elevated temperatures frequently
296 lead to enhanced mobility of carriers; nevertheless, they also accelerate non-
297 radiative recombination, so impacting the charge carrier dynamics as a
298 whole. Temperature also affects the perovskite material's bandgap, which
299 changes the material's absorption properties and photogenerated carrier
300 density. Additionally, temperature influences the behavior of charge
301 transport layers and interfaces, affecting charge extraction and collection
302 efficiency. While slightly higher temperatures can enhance characteristics
303 like carrier mobility, they can also accelerate the degradation of the
304 perovskite layer and other cell components, potentially compromising the
305 device's long-term stability and efficiency. Therefore, proper thermal
306 management is crucial for maintaining optimal operating conditions and
307 maximizing the PV performance of GaAs-based PSCs. This study suggests
308 that PV performance is optimal at ambient temperature, with 300K being
309 ideal for achieving a maximum PCE of 29.74%. This performance is also
310 supported by robust shunt resistances and low series resistance.
 26 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 13
27

311 3.5. Optimized CdTe-based TFSC model

312 Understanding and optimizing the optical properties play a crucial role in
313 designing and improving the performance of GaAs-based TFSCs.
314 Researchers focus on enhancing light absorption, minimizing reflection and
315 transmission losses, and maximizing the utilization of absorbed photons to
316 achieve higher conversion efficiencies. GaAs-based TFSCs hold promise as a
317 cost-effective and efficient alternative to traditional silicon-based solar cells.
318 To maximize the potential of this model, the thickness of different layers,
319 manufacturing procedures, and device design must be carefully considered.
320 The optimized band structure is depicted in Figure 6, illustrating the band
321 diagram of the multilayer design intended for efficient conversion of solar
322 energy into electricity. The band diagram of this structure helps to
323 understand the energy levels and charge transport mechanism. Due to its
324 wide band gap energy of 3.3 eV, ZnO serves as the window layer at the top
325 of the structure, allowing the majority of incident light to pass through to
326 the absorber layer. ZnO is aligned with the buffer layer, CdS, forming a type
327 II heterojunction with a staggered band alignment. This alignment allows for
328 efficient electron transfer from CdS to ZnO, with electrons flowing from CdS
329 to ZnO. This transfer is due to the energy offset between Ec and Ev, which
330 results in a built-in potential barrier that drives the electron flow. The
331 subsequent layer in the structure is the absorber layer, composed of GaAs,
332 possessing a band gap energy of 1.43 eV, which is well-matched with the
333 solar spectrum. The GaAs is aligned with allowing for efficient electron
334 transfer from GaAs to CdS. This transfer is due to the energy offset, which
335 results in another built-in potential barrier that drives the electron flow. The
336 bottom layer is NiO, ER-HTL, with a band gap energy of 3.8 eV. In a type II
337 heterojunction, the energy levels of the valence and conduction bands of two
338 distinct materials are misaligned, forming a staggered band arrangement.
339 This misalignment typically confines charge carriers, such as electrons and
340 holes, to one of the materials, hindering efficient charge transfer between
341 them. In the specific case of a NiO/ZnO heterojunction, NiO typically has a
342 lower bandgap and a valence band edge closer to the Fermi level, while ZnO
343 usually exhibits a wider bandgap and a valence band edge farther from the
344 Fermi level. This band alignment results in a type II heterojunction, where
345 electrons are confined to the conduction band of ZnO and holes are
346 restricted to the valence band of NiO. In this configuration, the energy
347 barrier created by the band alignment makes it inefficient for holes to
348 transfer from NiO to ZnO. This transfer is due to the energy offset, the
349 conduction band edge of NiO, which results in another built-in potential
350 barrier that drives the hole flow. Overall, the band diagram of the proposed
351 structure shows that the energy levels are aligned in a way that facilitates
352 efficient charge transfer and collection, resulting in high solar cell efficiency.
353 The major elements that can be optimized in the proposed model are
354 covered in this investigation. The PV performance can be enhanced by
355 optimizing the band alignment. TFSCs are created during the manufacturing
356 process, which can increase their PV performance and lower their cost. A
 28 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 14
29

357 textured surface can increase the amount of light absorbed, while a thin-film
358 design can decrease the amount of material used, increasing the efficiency.
359 The interface in the device between the absorber layer and buffer layers can
360 be designed to increase cell efficiency. Incorporating a buffer layer between
361 the absorber layer and the transparent conductive oxide layer has been
362 found to improve the solar cell's performance. It takes knowledge of
363 material science, engineering, and device design to optimize the proposed
364 model. It is possible to increase the affordability and accessibility of solar
365 energy for everyone by increasing the cell efficiency.

366

367 Figure 6. A diagram depicting the energy bands of electrons in the optimized cell
368 structure.

369 The utilization of the SCAPS-1D program in this study has resulted in
370 successful optimization of the PV performance of the GaAs-based solar cell
371 model. The J-V characteristics and QE curves of the proposed model are
372 illustrated in Figure 7.
 30 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 15
31

373

374 Figure 7. (a) J-V characteristics, and (b) QE curve for the proposed model.

375 As wavelength increases, the quantum efficiency (QE) of the GaAs

376 structure with the buffer layer diminishes, indicating a decrease in the
377 conversion of incident light into electron-hole pairs and, consequently, a
378 reduction in the collection of those pairs as electric current. After simulating
379 the optimized parameter, the quantum efficiency was carried out around
380 100%. Achieving this value in practical applications can be challenging.
381 However, in theory, if factors such as electron transit, absorption, or
382 recombination are eliminated, solar cells can theoretically reach a quantum
383 efficiency of 100%. We've come across research papers that mention QE
384 values of 100%. The present study focuses on a cell structure that does not
385 incorporate any recombination mechanism. It utilizes ZnO as a TCO, which
386 is a material with bulk defects. CdS, on the other hand, is not employed due
387 to its highly defective nature, although it can contribute to the maximum QE
388 of actual devices.

389 We recommend conducting further research on fabricating state-of-the-art

390 devices that intentionally introduce defects and have short lifetimes. Such
391 devices would align with the physical reality of the system and significantly
392 impact the QE, ultimately yielding valuable and meaningful results. The
393 optimized model exhibits PV performance parameters of 1.0825 V for VOC,
394 31.423302 mA/cm2 for JSC, 87.43% for FF, and 29.74% for PCE.

395 4. Discussion
396 CIGS-based TFSCs have demonstrated high efficiency, with some
397 laboratory cells reaching over 22%. The band gap of CIGS can be tuned to
398 optimize light absorption and efficiency, and the materials are abundant and
 32 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 16
33

399 have low toxicity. However, CIGS-based TFSCs can be more challenging to
400 manufacture than CdTe-based TFSCs, and the materials can be more
401 expensive. Additionally, the long-term stability of CIGS-based TFSCs is still
402 being investigated. Perovskite-based TFSCs have emerged as a promising
403 alternative to traditional TFSCs due to their high efficiency potential, low
404 cost, and ease of manufacturing. Perovskites have demonstrated efficiency
405 levels exceeding 25% in laboratory cells. However, perovskite-based TFSCs
406 are still in the research phase, and their long-term stability and durability
407 are yet to be fully understood. Additionally, some of the materials used in
408 perovskite-based TFSCs can be toxic and difficult to handle. Silicon is the
409 most widely used material in the solar industry, and silicon-based TFSCs
410 have demonstrated high efficiency levels and long-term stability. Silicon is
411 abundant and non-toxic, and the manufacturing process for silicon-based
412 TFSCs is well established. However, silicon-based TFSCs can be more
413 expensive to produce than CdTe-based TFSCs, and the efficiency of silicon-
414 based TFSCs can be limited by the band gap of the material. While other
415 types of TFSCs, such as CIGS, perovskite, and silicon-based, offer their own
416 unique advantages, the relative strengths and weaknesses of each must be
417 carefully considered based on the specific application and desired outcome.
418 Compared to the TFSCs discussed above, the CdTe-based TFSCs offer a
419 combination of high efficiency, low-cost production, and commercial
420 viability, making them a strong contender in the solar industry. Table 3
421 compares the PV parameter of CdTe-based TFSCs with various structures.
422 The values provided for these solar cells are lower than our determined PCE
423 value. CdTe-based solar cells have emerged as the leading commercially
424 available thin film PV technology, surpassing Si technologies in terms of
425 temperature coefficients, energy yield, and degradation rates. With over 30
426 GW peak of CdTe-based modules installed globally, multiple companies are
427 actively involved in their production. These modules are currently being
428 shipped with efficiencies of up to 18.6%, while laboratory cell efficiency
429 exceeds 22%. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency limit for a solar cell
430 with a band gap of 1.45 eV is estimated to be around 32%. Extensive
431 research and fundamental treatise have confirmed that a two-junction
432 device, utilizing appropriate absorber materials, can achieve a theoretical
433 maximum efficiency of approximately 44.5%. Referring to Table 3, the
434 laboratory cell high conversion efficiency is reported to be approximately
435 44.14%.

436 Table 3. Comparison of the PV performance of GaAs-based TFSCs.

Structure VOC JSC FF PCE Ref.

2
(Volt) (mA/cm ) (%) (%)
n-GaAs/n-AlGaAs/n-i-p-GaAs/p-AlGaAs 0.865 19.4 77.00 12.90 [24]
Localized tensile stress on GaAs 1.002 23.16 71.13 16.51 [25]
 34 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 17
35

In0.49Ga 0.51P/GaAs/In0.49 Ga0.51P 1.000 24.50 78.00 19.10 [26]

ITO/TiO2/MgF2/Ga0.5In0⋅5P/GaAs/Ag 0.875 27.98 81.40 19.89 [27]
TCO/p-i-n GaAs/Al 0.850 24.52 85.70 21.05 [16]
InGaP/GaAs heterostructure 0.980 27.06 83.35 22.08 [28]
MgF.ZnS/n+-GaAs/GaInP/n-p-p+-GaAs 1.042 25.42 88.40 23.40 [29]
GaInP/GaAs tandem structure 1.050 27.50 88.00 25.50 [30]
n+-AlGaAs/n-GaAs/p-GaAs/p+-GaAs 1.008 29.50 86.76 25.80 [31]
ITO/p-In0.7Ga0.3N/i-GaAs/n-In0.7Ga0.3N 0.906 32.94 87.15 25.88 [32]

Cu/TiO2/GaAs/CdTe/Pt 1.080 26.88 88.85 26.01 [15]

MgF2/ZnS/n+-GaAs/p-GaAs/p+-GaAs 0.980 30.80 86.29 26.80 [33]

Al0.8Ga0.2As/n-GaAs/p-GaAs/p+-GaAs 1.035 30.87 85.68 27.37 [34]

GaAs-based thin film solar cell 1.107 29.60 84.10 27.60 [35]

Al0.85Ga0.15As/GaAs/Au 1.107 29.49 86.70 28.35 [36]

TiO2/GaAs/SiO2 0.900 28.27 86.47 28.67 [37]

Al0.3Ga0.7As/GaAs/Pt 1.108 30.00 86.50 28.70 [38]

Al0.3Ga0.7As/GaAs 1.099 30.51 87.10 29.21 [39]

Al/ZnO/CdS/GaAs/NiO/Au 1.082 31.42 87.43 29.74 PW
n-InAlGaP/n-GaAs/p-GaAs/GaAs 1.000 34.79 85.00 29.75 [40]
GaInP/GaAs tandem structure 2.397 13.87 89.74 29.83 [41]

437 PW Proposed work

438 In this study, the VOC was determined to be approximately 1.5 eV, which
439 aligns precisely with the theoretical band gap energy of CdTe material.
440 Therefore, the resulting PCE was determined to be 31.82% when excluding
441 the defect density of the absorber layer. These findings closely align with
442 theoretical assumptions and reports from other researchers. It is crucial to
443 emphasize that considering the defect density of the absorber layer leads to
444 a decrease in PCE.
445 5. Conclusions
446 The SCAPS-1D simulator has successfully simulated the optimization
447 parameters of the CdTe-based cell with a thin layer of
448 Al/ZnO/CdS/CdTe/Cu2O/Ni structure. Ni is a superior back metal contact
 36 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 18
37

449 option compared to other metals for the proposed device. To achieve the
450 best performance, it is recommended to set both the acceptor and donor
451 densities for the absorber and buffer layers at 1017 cm -3. These densities can
452 be achieved with a window and buffer layer thickness of 100 nm and an
453 absorber layer thickness of 2500 nm. A conclusion can be drawn that the
454 efficiency of the cell can be improved by reducing the series resistance and
455 increasing the shunt resistance after analyzing the impacts of resistance in
456 series and shunt. The performance of cell structures can be significantly
457 affected by temperature, which can lead to their effectiveness declining as
458 the temperature rises. After thorough optimization, the device demonstrated
459 a high VOC of 1.4811 V, a JSC of 28.682434 mA/cm2, a FF of 74.91%, and a
460 remarkable PCE of 31.82%. This level of PV efficiency outperforms other
461 research reports by a significant margin. Additionally, the proposed
462 structure exhibits a high level of photon absorption, with nearly 100%
463 quantum efficiency at visible wavelengths.

464 6. Patents
465 This section is not mandatory but may be added if there are patents
466 resulting from the work reported in this manuscript.

467 Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be

468 downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Figure S1: title; Table S1: title; Video S1:
469 title.
470 Author Contributions: For research articles with several authors, a short
471 paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following
472 statements should be used “Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.X.;
473 software, X.X.; validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation,
474 X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.;
475 writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X.; project
476 administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to
477 the published version of the manuscript.” Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the
478 term explanation. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed
479 substantially to the work reported.
480 Funding: This work has not obtained financial support from any source.
481 Institutional Review Board Statement: In this section, you should add the
482 Institutional Review Board Statement and approval number, if relevant to your study.
483 You might choose to exclude this statement if the study did not require ethical
484 approval. Please note that the Editorial Office might ask you for further information.
485 Please add “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki,
486 and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF
487 INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving humans.
488 OR “The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or
489 Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of
490 approval).” for studies involving animals. OR “Ethical review and approval were
491 waived for this study due to REASON (please provide a detailed justification).” OR
492 “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans or animals.
 38 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 19
39

493 Informed Consent Statement: Any research article describing a study involving
494 humans should contain this statement. Please add “Informed consent was obtained
495 from all subjects involved in the study.” OR “Patient consent was waived due to
496 REASON (please provide a detailed justification).” OR “Not applicable.” for studies
497 not involving humans. You might also choose to exclude this statement if the study
498 did not involve humans.
499 Written informed consent for publication must be obtained from participating
500 patients who can be identified (including by the patients themselves). Please state
501 “Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this
502 paper” if applicable.
503 Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on
504 request from the corresponding author.
505 Acknowledgments: Dr. Marc Burgelman of the University of Gent in Belgium has
506 supplied the SCAPS-1D simulation program, which we gladly acknowledge. The
507 corresponding author is also grateful to the University Grants Commission of
508 Bangladesh.
509 Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest between the authors and the
510 publisher of this work, and it hasn't been published anywhere else either.
511 Appendix A
512 The appendix is an optional section that can contain details and data
513 supplemental to the main text—for example, explanations of experimental
514 details that would disrupt the flow of the main text but nonetheless remain
515 crucial to understanding and reproducing the research shown; figures of
516 replicates for experiments of which representative data is shown in the main
517 text can be added here if brief, or as Supplementary data. Mathematical
518 proofs of results not central to the paper can be added as an appendix.

519 Appendix B
520 All appendix sections must be cited in the main text. In the appendices,
521 Figures, Tables, etc. should be labeled starting with “A”—e.g., Figure A1,
522 Figure A2, etc.

523 References[1] X. Yu et al., “Supporting Information Additive engineering for efficient wide-bandgap
524 perovskite solar cells with low open-circuit voltage losses,” pp. 1–6.

525 [2] S. Q. Zhu, B. Bian, Y. F. Zhu, J. Yang, D. Zhang, and L. Feng, “Enhancement in power conver-
526 sion efficiency of GaAs solar cells by utilizing gold nanostar film for light-trapping,” Front.
527 Chem., vol. 7, no. MAR, pp. 1–8, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fchem.2019.00137.

528 [3] H. Bao, C. Yan, B. Wang, X. Fang, C. Y. Zhao, and X. Ruan, “Double-layer nanoparticle-based
529 coatings for efficient terrestrial radiative cooling,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 168, pp.
 40 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 20
41

530 78–84, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.SOLMAT.2017.04.020.

531 [4] N. Papež, R. Dallaev, Ş. Ţălu, and J. Kaštyl, “Overview of the current state of gallium arsenide-
532 based solar cells,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1–16, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ma14113075.

533 [5] R. kaur et al., “Understanding arsenic toxicity: Implications for environmental exposure and hu-
534 man health,” J. Hazard. Mater. Lett., vol. 5, no. August 2023, p. 100090, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.-
535 hazl.2023.100090.

536 [6] T. Wang, M. Chen, R. Sun, and J. Min, “Recent research progress of all-polymer solar cells
537 based on PSMA-type polymer acceptors,” Chem, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1702–1767, 2023, doi:
538 10.1016/j.chempr.2023.05.031.

539 [7] T. D. Lee and A. U. Ebong, “A review of thin film solar cell technologies and challenges,” Re-
540 new. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 70, pp. 1286–1297, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/
541 J.RSER.2016.12.028.

542 [8] T. Matsui, H. Sai, A. Bidiville, H. J. Hsu, and K. Matsubara, “Progress and limitations of thin-film
543 silicon solar cells,” Sol. Energy, vol. 170, pp. 486–498, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/
544 J.SOLENER.2018.05.077.

545 [9] K. ElKhamisy, H. Abdelhamid, E. S. M. El-Rabaie, and N. Abdel-Salam, “A Comprehensive Sur-

546 vey of Silicon Thin-film Solar Cell: Challenges and Novel Trends,” Plasmonics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
547 1–20, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11468-023-01905-x.

548 [10] W. Long et al., “On the limiting efficiency for silicon heterojunction solar cells,” Sol. Energy
549 Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 231, p. 111291, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.SOLMAT.2021.111291.

550 [11] A. S. Al-Ezzi and M. N. M. Ansari, “Photovoltaic Solar Cells: A Review,” Appl. Syst. Innov., vol.
551 5, no. 4, pp. 1–17, 2022, doi: 10.3390/asi5040067.

552 [12] Q. Li et al., “Comparative study of GaAs and CdTe solar cell performance under low-intensity
553 light irradiance,” Sol. Energy, vol. 157, pp. 216–226, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1016/
554 J.SOLENER.2017.08.023.
 42 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 21
43

555 [13] R. Hosen, S. Sikder, M. S. Uddin, M. M. Haque, H. Mamur, and M. R. A. Bhuiyan, “Effect of var-
556 ious layers on improving the photovoltaic efficiency of Al/ZnO/CdS/CdTe/Cu2O/Ni solar cells,” J.
557 Alloy. Metall. Syst., vol. 4, no. July, p. 100041, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jalmes.2023.100041.

558 [14] N. El Ouarie et al., “Modeling of highly efficient CNGS based kesterite solar cell: A DFT study
559 along with SCAPS-1D analysis,” Sol. Energy, vol. 263, no. August, p. 111929, 2023, doi:
560 10.1016/j.solener.2023.111929.

561 [15] D. Jha, A. Dixit, A. Sushrutha, and P. K. Patel, “Optical simulations and optimization of highly
562 efficient GaAs based quantum dot solar cell,” Opt. Commun., vol. 523, no. July, p. 128717, 2022,
563 doi: 10.1016/j.optcom.2022.128717.

564 [16] M. Azza et al., “Numerical Simulation of p-i-n GaAs Photovoltaic Cell Using SCAPS-1D,” Bioint-
565 erface Res. Appl. Chem., vol. 13, no. 4, p. 253, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC13
566 3.253.

567 [17] R. K. Yadav et al., “A qualitative study of SnSe thin film solar cells using SCAPS 1D and compar-
568 ison with experimental results: A pathway towards 22.69% efficiency,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
569 Cells, vol. 244, no. February, p. 111835, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2022.111835.

570 [18] P. Roy, S. Tiwari, and A. Khare, “An investigation on the influence of temperature variation on
571 the performance of tin (Sn) based perovskite solar cells using various transport layers and ab-
572 sorber layers,” Results Opt., vol. 4, p. 100083, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.RIO.2021.100083.

573 [19] A. Bag, R. Radhakrishnan, R. Nekovei, and R. Jeyakumar, “Effect of absorber layer, hole trans-
574 port layer thicknesses, and its doping density on the performance of perovskite solar cells by
575 device simulation,” Sol. Energy, vol. 196, pp. 177–182, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/
576 J.SOLENER.2019.12.014.

577 [20] S. Zeiske, O. J. Sandberg, N. Zarrabi, W. Li, P. Meredith, and A. Armin, “Direct observation of
578 trap-assisted recombination in organic photovoltaic devices,” Nat. Commun., vol. 12, no. 1, pp.
579 1–7, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23870-x.

580 [21] S. H. Cheragee and M. J. Alam, “Device modelling and numerical analysis of high-efficiency dou-
 44 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 22
45

581 ble absorbers solar cells with diverse transport layer materials,” Results Opt., vol. 15, no. Octo-
582 ber 2023, p. 100647, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.rio.2024.100647.

583 [22] J. D. Servaites, S. Yeganeh, T. J. Marks, and M. A. Ratner, “Efficiency enhancement in organic
584 photovoltaic cells: Consequences of optimizing series resistance,” Adv. Funct. Mater., vol. 20,
585 no. 1, pp. 97–104, 2010, doi: 10.1002/adfm.200901107.

586 [23] X. Zhang et al., “Temperature-dependent charge transport in solution-processed perovskite so-
587 lar cells with tunable trap concentration and charge recombination,” J. Mater. Chem. C, vol. 5,
588 no. 36, pp. 9376–9382, 2017, doi: 10.1039/c7tc02646c.

589 [24] N. Vandamme et al., “Ultrathin GaAs solar cells with a silver back mirror,” IEEE J. Photo-
590 voltaics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 565–570, 2015, doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2014.2371236.

591 [25] Q. Huang et al., “Effects of localized tensile stress on GaAs solar cells revealed by absolute elec-
592 troluminescence imaging and distributed circuit modeling,” Sol. Energy, vol. 274, no. February,
593 p. 112541, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2024.112541.

594 [26] W. Yang et al., “Ultra-thin GaAs single-junction solar cells integrated with a reflective back scat-
595 tering layer,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 115, no. 20, 2014, doi: 10.1063/1.4878156.

596 [27] P. Nath and A. Biswas, “Model development of lattice-matched p-GaInP/i-GaAs/n-GaInP hetero-
597 junction solar cell and its performance optimization,” Opt. Mater. (Amst)., vol. 143, no. April, p.
598 114155, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.optmat.2023.114155.

599 [28] S. Moon, K. Kim, Y. Kim, J. Heo, and J. Lee, “Highly efficient single-junction GaAs thin-film solar
600 cell on flexible substrate,” Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. February, pp. 1–6, 2016, doi: 10.1038/
601 srep30107.

602 [29] V. Vijayakumar and D. P. Birnie, “Optical and electronic simulation of gallium arsenide/silicon
603 tandem four terminal solar cells,” Sol. Energy, vol. 97, pp. 85–92, 2013, doi: 10.1016/
604 j.solener.2013.07.033.

605 [30] E. T. Mohamed, A. O. M. Maka, M. Mehmood, Al. M. Direedar, and N. Amin, “Performance sim-
 46 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 23
47

606 ulation of single and dual-junction GaInP/GaAs tandem solar cells using AMPS-1D,” Sustain. En-
607 ergy Technol. Assessments, vol. 44, no. October 2020, p. 101067, 2021, doi: 10.1016/
608 j.seta.2021.101067.

609 [31] M. Abderrezek, F. Djahli, M. Fathi, and M. Ayad, “Numerical modeling of GaAs solar cell perfor-
610 mances,” Elektron. ir Elektrotechnika, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 41–44, 2013, doi: 10.5755/
611 j01.eee.19.8.5392.

612 [32] I. X. Ga, X. N. G. Solar, C. Using, A. Nassour, and M. Kandouci, High Performance Analysis of
613 Hetero-Junction, vol. 1. Springer International Publishing, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97816-
614 1.

615 [33] B. Najat and D. Benmoussa, “Simulation and optimization performance RF GaAs homojunction
616 solar cell zith BSF layer,” Int. Renew. Sustain. Energy Conf., pp. 1–4, 2018, doi: 10.1109/IR-
617 SEC.2018.8702983.

618 [34] C. F. Kamdem, A. T. Ngoupo, F. K. Konan, H. J. T. Nkuissi, B. Hartiti, and J.-M. Ndjaka, “Study
619 of the Role of Window Layer Al0.8Ga0.2As on GaAs-based Solar Cells Performance,” Indian J.
620 Sci. Technol., vol. 12, no. 37, pp. 1–9, 2019, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2019/v12i37/147207.

621 [35] B. M. Kayes et al., “27.6% Conversion efficiency, a new record for single-junction solar cells un-
622 der 1 sun illumination,” Conf. Rec. IEEE Photovolt. Spec. Conf., pp. 000004–000008, 2011, doi:
623 10.1109/PVSC.2011.6185831.

624 [36] X. Wang, M. R. Khan, J. L. Gray, M. A. Alam, and M. S. Lundstrom, “Design of gaas solar cells
625 operating close to the shockley-queisser limit,” IEEE J. Photovoltaics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 737–744,
626 2013, doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2013.2241594.

627 [37] Z. Zand, S. Khosravi, and M. Hayati, “Design of GaAs-thin film solar cell using TiO2 hemispheri-
628 cal nanoparticles array,” Opt. Laser Technol., vol. 156, no. July, p. 108608, 2022, doi: 10.1016/
629 j.optlastec.2022.108608.

630 [38] S. T. Hwang et al., “Bandgap grading and Al0.3Ga0.7As heterojunction emitter for highly effi-
631 cient GaAs-based solar cells,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 155, pp. 264–272, 2016, doi:
 48 Solar 2024, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 24
49

632 10.1016/j.solmat.2016.06.009.

633 [39] F. D. Silva and D. N. Micha, “High-efficiency GaAs solar cell optimization by theoretical simula-
634 tion,” Symp. Microelectron. Technol. Devices, pp. 1–4, 2019, doi: 10.1109/
635 SBMicro.2019.8919411.

636 [40] K. Attari, L. Amhaimar, A. El Yaakoubi, A. Asselman, and M. Bassou, “The Design and Optimiza-
637 tion of GaAs Single Solar Cells Using the Genetic Algorithm and Silvaco ATLAS,” Int. J. Pho-
638 toenergy, vol. 2017, 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/8269358.

639 [41] A. Mahfoud, M. Fathi, A. Belghachi, and F. Djahli, “Numerical modeling of GaInP/GaAs mono-
640 lithic tandem solar cells,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1758, 2016, doi: 10.1063/1.4959390.

641
642

643 Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those
644 of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
645 disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or
646 products referred to in the content.