Charge Pair Separation Dynamics in Organic Bulk‐Heterojunction Solar Cells

The authors regret a mistake in their previously published paper and would like to communicate a correction. Throughout the manuscript, the values for the energetic disorder σ that had been investigated were stated to be 0 meV, 30 meV, 50 meV, and 70 meV. Due to a mistake in the implementation, these values need to be rescaled by a factor of 2⎯⎯√ and therefore correspond to 0 meV, 42.4 meV, 70.7 meV, and 99.0 meV, respectively. These values should be replaced throughout the text and figures. For readability, we will refer to the new disorder values as 0 meV, 40 meV, 70 meV, and 100 meV in the following. The change in the values for σ affects the definition of the disorder radii 𝑟𝜎 , i.e., the radii after which the influence of energetic disorder dominates over that of Coulomb interaction, which in turn affects the absolute and relative disorder times extracted from the kinetic Monte Carlo (kMC) simulations. We have re‐evaluated all results with respect to the new values of σ. The results show a slight decrease in disorder times 𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠 , both in absolute and relative terms, for all investigated parameter combinations with finite σ. There is no change in separation and transport times as well as in the pair lifetimes. Since the changes in 𝑡𝑑𝑖𝑠 are only minor, the most relevant changes in the correction represents the re‐labeling of the values for σ in the text and figures. The main conclusion of the paper, namely a slow charge pair separation at large disorder and low permittivity, does not change. The re‐interpretation of the absolute times with the new values for σ leads to a more realistic quantification of the time‐scales involved in the dynamics of electron‐hole pair separation.      «

The authors regret a mistake in their previously published paper and would like to communicate a correction. Throughout the manuscript, the values for the energetic disorder σ that had been investigated were stated to be 0 meV, 30 meV, 50 meV, and 70 meV. Due to a mistake in the implementation, these values need to be rescaled by a factor of 2⎯⎯√ and therefore correspond to 0 meV, 42.4 meV, 70.7 meV, and 99.0 meV, respectively. These values should be replaced throughout the text and figure...     »