Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Chatzisideris, Marios Dimos

  • Google
  • 2
  • 4
  • 134

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (2/2 displayed)

  • 2016Ecodesign perspectives of thin-film photovoltaic technologies67citations
  • 2016Ecodesign perspectives of thin-film photovoltaic technologies:A review of life cycle assessment studies67citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Krebs, Frederik C.
2 / 103 shared
Martinez, Nieves Espinosa
1 / 4 shared
Laurent, Alexis
2 / 5 shared
Espinosa Martinez, Nieves
1 / 3 shared
Chart of publication period
2016

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Krebs, Frederik C.
  • Martinez, Nieves Espinosa
  • Laurent, Alexis
  • Espinosa Martinez, Nieves
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Ecodesign perspectives of thin-film photovoltaic technologies

  • Krebs, Frederik C.
  • Martinez, Nieves Espinosa
  • Laurent, Alexis
  • Chatzisideris, Marios Dimos
Abstract

Here, we review 33 life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of thin-film photovoltaic (PV) technologies that have had a holistic coverage in their assessments and/or have included ecodesign aspects. Only five of them were found to have a comprehensive life cycle and impact coverage, and their analyses highlighted the importance of (i) including the entire life cycle of the PV system, in particular the often-omitted disposal stage, and (ii) assessing all relevant impact categories and not just climate change or energy requirements to minimise the risk of burden-shifting. Out of the 28 studies embracing ecodesign considerations in parts of the PV life cycle, the analysis of the eleven of them addressing primary energy demand during module production suggests that electricity consumption during the metal deposition processes is a top contributor and should be prioritised by PV technology developers. A similar analysis of the ten studies having included the balance of system components (BOS) in the assessments showed that these contribute significantly to most environmental impact categories. Beyond recommending that stakeholders in the PV field rely on LCA to support decision-making and to guide scientific research and technological development, we strongly advocate LCA practitioners to include the entire PV system, including the BOS, to identify ecodesign opportunities without risking potential burden-shifting across the different parts of the system and across impact categories.

Topics
  • Deposition
  • impedance spectroscopy