4.8 Article

Heterogeneous Charge Carrier Dynamics in Organic Inorganic Hybrid Materials: Nanoscale Lateral and Depth-Dependent Variation of Recombination Rates in Methylammonium Lead Halide Perovskite Thin Films

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 4799-4807

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01917

关键词

Methylammonium-lead halide perovskite; cathodoluminescence; nanoimaging; surface defects; nonradiative recombination; photovoltaics

资金

  1. Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at NREL
  2. Department of Energy [DE-AC36-08G028308]
  3. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  4. NSF [DGE 1106400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We reveal substantial luminescence yield heterogeneity among individual subdiffraction grains of high-performing methylammonium lead halide perovskite films by using high-resolution cathodoluminescence microscopy. Using considerably lower accelerating voltages than is conventional in scanning electron microscopy, we image the electron beam-induced luminescence of the films and statistically characterize the depth-dependent role of defects that promote nonradiative recombination losses. The highest variability in the luminescence intensity is observed at the exposed grain surfaces, which we attribute to surface defects. By probing deeper into the film, it appears that bulk defects are more homogeneously distributed. By identifying the origin and variability of a surface-specific loss mechanism that deleteriously impacts device efficiency, we suggest that producing films homogeneously composed of the highest-luminescence grains found in this study could result in a dramatic improvement of overall device efficiency. We also show that although cathodoluminescence microscopy is generally used only to image inorganic materials it can be a powerful tool to investigate radiative and nonradiative charge carrier recombination on the nanoscale in organic-inorganic hybrid materials.

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