The Relation Between Open‐Circuit Voltage and the Onset of Photocurrent Generation by Charge‐Transfer Absorption in Polymer : Fullerene Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells

Photocurrent generation by charge‐transfer (CT) absorption is detected in a range of conjugated polymer–[6,6]‐phenyl C₆₁ butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM) based solar cells. The low intensity CT absorption bands are observed using a highly sensitive measurement of the external quantum efficiency (EQE) spectrum by means of Fourier‐transform photocurrent spectroscopy (FTPS). The presence of these CT bands implies the formation of weak ground‐state charge‐transfer complexes in the studied polymer–fullerene blends. The effective band gap (E_g) of the material blends used in these photovoltaic devices is determined from the energetic onset of the photocurrent generated by CT absorption. It is shown that for all devices, under various preparation conditions, the open‐circuit voltage (V_oc) scales linearly with E_g. The redshift of the CT band upon thermal annealing of regioregular poly(3‐hexylthiophene):PCBM and thermal aging of poly(phenylenevinylene)(PPV):PCBM photovoltaic devices correlates with the observed drop in open‐circuit voltage of high‐temperature treated versus untreated devices. Increasing the weight fraction of PCBM also results in a redshift of E_g, proportional with the observed changes in V_oc for different PPV:PCBM ratios. As E_g corresponds with the effective bandgap of the material blends, a measurement of the EQE spectrum by FTPS allows us to measure this energy directly on photovoltaic devices, and makes it a valuable technique in the study of organic bulk heterojunction solar cells.     

Sozionik

Ohne Zusammenfassung Eingegangen am 11.07.1997     

Embedding Ethical Impact Assessment in Nanosafety Decision Support

Nanotechnology is a key enabling technology, which is developing fast and influences many aspects of life. Nanomaterials are already included in a broad range of products and industrial sectors. Nanosafety issues are still a matter of concern for policy makers and stakeholders, but currently, there is no platform where all stakeholders can meet and discuss these issues. A comprehensive overview of all the issues in one single dashboard presenting the output of a decision support system is also lacking. This article outlines a strategy for developing one innovative part of a modular decision support system, designed to support the work of a new Risk Governance Council (RGC) for nanomaterials which will be established through the combined efforts of the GOV4NANO, NANORIGO, and RiskGONE H2020 projects. This new module will consist of guidelines for Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) for nanomaterials and nanoenabled products. This article offers recommendations for adapting the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) prestandard on Ethical Impact Assessment CWA (CEN Workshop Agreement) 17145‐2:2017 (E), to fit into the more‐encompassing decision support system for risk governance of nanomaterials within the RiskGONE project.     

Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials

Nanotechnologies have reached maturity and market penetration that require nano‐specific changes in legislation and harmonization among legislation domains, such as the amendments to REACH for nanomaterials (NMs) which came into force in 2020. Thus, an assessment of the components and regulatory boundaries of NMs risk governance is timely, alongside related methods and tools, as part of the global efforts to optimise nanosafety and integrate it into product design processes, via Safe(r)‐by‐Design (SbD) concepts. This paper provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art regarding risk governance of NMs and lays out the theoretical basis for the development and implementation of an effective, trustworthy and transparent risk governance framework for NMs. The proposed framework enables continuous integration of the evolving state of the science, leverages best practice from contiguous disciplines and facilitates responsive re‐thinking of nanosafety governance to meet future needs. To achieve and operationalise such framework, a science‐based Risk Governance Council (RGC) for NMs is being developed. The framework will provide a toolkit for independent NMs' risk governance and integrates needs and views of stakeholders. An extension of this framework to relevant advanced materials and emerging technologies is also envisaged, in view of future foundations of risk research in Europe and globally.