Table 4. Comparison of PSC performance using ZnO ETL.
| Device structure | Study | V OC (V) | J SC (mA cm−2) | FF (%) | PCE (%) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTO/ZnO/FASnI3/spiro-OMeTAD/Au | Simulation | 0.92 | 22.65 | 67.74 | 14.03 | 68 |
| FTO/ZnO/CH3NH3PbI3/spiro-OMeTAD/Au | Experiment | 0.79 | 27.25 | 0.42 | 10.25 | 92 |
| FTO/ZnO/CH3NH3PbI3/PEDOT:PSS/Au | Simulation | 1.27 | 21.78 | 74.53 | 20.64 | 93 |
| FTO/ZnO/CsSnI3/NiOx/Au | Simulation | 1.05 | 28.02 | 81.22 | 23.84 | 94 |
| ITO/ZnO/CsPbI3/CBTS/Au | Simulation | 0.997 | 21.07 | 85.03 | 17.86 | 95 |
| FTO/ZnO/CH3NH3PbI3/CuI/Au | Simulation | 0.76 | 32.85 | 71.74 | 17.94 | 96 |
| FTO/TiO2/Ni–ZnO/CH3NH3PbI3/spiro-MeOTAD/Ag | Experiment | 0.86 | 20.67 | 36.32 | 6.52 | 97 |
| FTO/ZnO/MAPbI3/spiro-OMeTAD/Au | Experiment | 1.04 | 19.31 | 71.09 | 14.25 | 98 |
| FTO/ZnO/MAPbI3/spiro-OMeTAD/Ag | Experiment | 0.97 | 20.4 | 66 | 13.1 | 99 |
| FTO/Sr–ZnO/FASnI3/spiro-OMeTAD/Au | Simulation | 0.89 | 22.64 | 66.86 | 16.08 | This work |