4.6 Article

Synergistic Surface Passivation of CH3NH3PbBr3 Perovskite Quantum Dots with Phosphonic Acid and (3-Aminopropyl)triethoxysilane

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 19, 页码 5014-5021

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.201805656

关键词

ligand effects; perovskite phases; quantum dots; surface analysis; synthesis design

资金

  1. NASA through MACES [NNX15AQ01A]
  2. UCSC Committee on Research Special Research Grant
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61271059]
  4. program of China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  5. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences
  6. US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CH3NH3PbBr3 perovskite quantum dots (PQDs) are synthesized by using four different linear alkyl phosphonic acids (PAs) in conjunction with (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES) as capping ligands. The resultant PQDs are characterized by means of XRD, TEM, Raman spectroscopy, FTIR spectroscopy, UV/Vis, photoluminescence (PL), time-resolved PL, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). PA chain length is shown to control the PQD size (ca. 2.9-4.2 nm) and excitonic absorption band positions (lambda=488-525 nm), with shorter chain lengths corresponding to smaller sizes and bluer absorptions. All samples show a high PL quantum yield (ca. 46-83 %) and high PL stability; this is indicative of a low density of band gap trap states and effective surface passivation. Stability is higher for smaller PQDs; this is attributed to better passivation due to better solubility and less steric hindrance of the shorter PA ligands. Based on the FTIR, Raman, and XPS results, it is proposed that Pb2+ and CH3NH3+ surface defects are passivated by R-PO32- or R-PO2(OH)(-), whereas Br- surface defects are passivated by R-NH3+ moieties. This study establishes the combination of PA and APTES ligands as a highly effective dual passivation system for the synergistic passivation of multiple surface defects of PQDs through primarily ionic bonding.

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

4.6
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