Quantitative Analysis and Band Gap Determination for CIGS Absorber Layers Using Surface Techniques
Table 2
Average elemental composition of CIGS absorber layers by ICP-AES, XRF, SIMS, and AES.
Determination technique
Atomic concentration (at.%)
Cu
In
Ga
Se
B01
ICP-AES
26.4
—
16.4
—
8.9
—
48.3
—
XRF
26.5
(0.4)a
16.1
(−1.8)
9.3
(4.5)
48.1
(−0.4)
SIMS
27.4b
(3.8)
16.6
(1.2)
9.6
(7.9)
46.5
(−3.7)
AES
25.9
(−1.9)
16.2
(−1.2)
8.2
(−7.9)
49.7
(2.9)
B02
ICP-AES
25.2
—
15.6
—
11.7
—
47.5
—
XRF
24.6
(−2.4)
15.8
(1.3)
11.5
(−1.7)
48.1
(1.3)
SIMS
25.3
(0.4)
16.0
(2.6)
12.1
(3.4)
46.6
(−1.9)
AES
26.2
(4.0)
15.1
(−3.2)
9.2
(−21.4)
49.5
(4.2)
B03
ICP-AES
26.5
—
19.2
—
7.4
—
46.9
—
XRF
26.2
(−1.1)
18.1
(−5.7)
7.4
(0.0)
48.3
(3.0)
SIMS
25.7
(−3.0)
20.0
(4.2)
7.0
(−5.4)
47.3
(0.9)
AES
26.3
(−0.8)
17.9
(−6.8)
7.2
(−2.7)
48.6
(3.6)
B04
ICP-AES
26.2
—
18.9
—
7.1
—
47.7
—
XRF
26.4
(0.8)
18.3
(−3.2)
7.3
(2.8)
48.0
(0.6)
SIMS
26.2
—
18.9
—
7.1
—
47.7
—
AES
26.2
—
18.9
—
7.1
—
47.7
—
aThe numbers in parentheses represent the percentage deviation from the ICP-AES value. bCalculated from the element peak intensities in the depth profile.
