4.8 Article

Prediction of Novel p-Type Transparent Conductors in Layered Double Perovskites: A First-Principles Study

期刊

ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
卷 28, 期 26, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201800332

关键词

defect physics; density functional theory (DFT) calculations; electronic structures; layered double perovskites; transparent conductors

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2017YFB0702401]
  2. NSFC [11574024, 11634003]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51631005, 51571129]
  4. Science Challenge Project [TZ2016003, TZ2016004]
  5. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFB0700700]
  6. NSAF [U1530401]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of high-performance transparent conductors (TCs) is critical to various technologies from transparent electronics to solar cells. Whereas n-type TCs have been extensively applied in many electronic devices, their p-type counterparts have not been largely commercialized due to the lack of ideal materials. Combining atomic replacement and first-principles calculations, seven stable layered double perovskites are identified, i.e., Cs4CuSb2Cl12-like (Cs4M2+B23+X12VII) compounds as promising p-type TCs with sufficiently large bandgaps, delocalized wavefunction distribution with s-orbital components in valence band maximum (VBM) and the antibonding character of VBM to ensure their optical transparency, light hole effective masses, and intrinsic good p-type conductivities, respectively. Taking Cs4CdSb2Cl12 as a representative example, it is demonstrated that under Cd-poor (Cl-rich) conditions, Cs4CdSb2Cl12 could exhibit excellent p-type conductivity with high hole concentration, contributed by the intrinsic shallow-acceptor Cd-Sb with extremely low formation energy. Generally, the other 6 (Cs4M2+B23+X12VII) compounds exhibit similar intrinsic p-type defect properties as Cs4CdSb2Cl12, which could rank them as the top p-type TCs discovered or predicted until now.

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