4.8 Article

Revealing the Stoichiometric Tolerance of Lead Trihalide Perovskite Thin Films

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 114-120

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b02639

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M005143/1, EP/M015254/1]
  2. University of Birmingham
  3. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [763977]
  4. Joint Graduate School HyPerCells of the University of Potsdam
  5. Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin
  6. Helmholtz Energy Alliance Hybrid Photovoltaics
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [182087777 - SFB 951]
  8. EPSRC [EP/M005143/1, EP/M024881/1, EP/M015254/1, EP/S004947/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/S004947/1, EP/M024881/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [763977] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between the chemical composition of lead halide perovskite materials and their crystal and electronic structure is not yet sufficiently understood, despite its fundamental importance. Here, we determine the crystal and electronic structure of cesium lead bromide (CsPbBr3) while deliberately varying the cesium content. At substoichiometric concentrations of cesium, there are large variations in the frontier electronic structure of CsPbBr3 with only small variations in Cs content. We observe a critical point after which large variations in the chemical composition of CsPbBr3 result in comparably small changes in valence and conduction band energies. This behavior is starkly different from that of traditional semiconductors, such as InGaAs and GaInP, and demonstrates an impressive energetic tolerance of CsPbBr3 to large changes in its stoichiometry. This observation helps us to understand why a broad range of relatively uncontrolled, simple processing methodologies can deliver highly functional metal halide perovskite thin films.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据