4.8 Article

Pressure-Induced Phase Changes in Cesium Lead Bromide Perovskite Nanocrystals with and without Ruddlesden-Popper Faults

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 785-794

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b04157

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DMR-1807263]
  2. Department of Energy [DE-SC0019109]
  3. NSF [DMR-1810922]
  4. DOE-NNSA's Office of Experimental Sciences
  5. DOE Office of Science, Argonne National Laboratory [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  6. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0019109] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lead halide perovskites have a rich landscape of structural and optical properties, which can be explored and possibly controlled by applying high pressure. Despite several reports on high-pressure studies of CsPbBr3 nanocrystals (NCs), there have so far been no studies under pressure that incorporate planar defects. CsPbBr3 NCs with Ruddlesden-Popper (RP) faults, formed via post-synthetic fusion growth, are significantly larger in size than as-synthesized NCs and display exceptional emission stability. Here, we compare synchrotron-based high-pressure X-ray diffraction and photoluminescence (PL) properties of CsPbBr3 (without RP) and RP-CsPbBr3 (with RP) and resolve their crystal structure under pressure for the first time. CsPbBr3 undergoes a phase transition from the orthorhombic Pnma phase at ambient pressure to the cubic Pm (3) over barm phase at 1.7 GPa, and RP-CsPbBr3 transforms from Pnma to the monoclinic P2(1)/m phase at 0.74 GPa in addition to several isostructural transitions. Density-functional calculations predict a narrowing of the band gap with pressure, concomitant with the PL energies. The RP-CsPbBr3 NCs exhibit enhanced PL intensity at 1 GPa and show band gap opening at high pressures. This study opens new strategies for not only tuning just the structural properties but also tuning planar defects in alkali halide lead crystals for improved optical properties.

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