4.8 Article

Band Gap Engineering in MASnBr3 and CsSnBr3 Perovskites: Mechanistic Insights through the Application of Pressure

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 10, 期 23, 页码 7398-7405

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b03046

关键词

-

资金

  1. project PERSEO PERrovskite-based Solar cells: towards high Efficiency and lOng-term stability (Bando PRIN 2015-Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research (MIUR) [2488, 20155LECAJ]
  2. Polish National Science Centre, Grant Opus 16 [2018/31/B/ST3/02188]
  3. EFree, an Energy Frontier Research Center - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science [DE-SC0001057]
  4. Ministero Istruzione dell'Universita e della Ricerca (MIUR)
  5. University of Perugia through the program Dipartimenti di Eccellenza 2018-2022 (grant AMIS)
  6. European 531 Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 532 under Espresso project [764047]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here we report on the first structural and optical high-pressure investigation of MASnBr(3) (MA = [CH3NH3](+)) and CsSnBr3 halide perovskites. A massive red shift of 0.4 eV for MASnBr(3) and 0.2 eV for CsSnBr3 is observed within 1.3 to 1.5 GPa from absorption spectroscopy, followed by a huge blue shift of 0.3 and 0.5 eV, respectively. Synchrotron powder diffraction allowed us to correlate the upturn in the optical properties trend (onset of blue shift) with structural phase transitions from cubic to orthorhombic in MASnBr(3) and from tetragonal to monoclinic for CsSnBr3. Density functional theory calculations indicate a different underlying mechanism affecting the band gap evolution with pressure, a key role of metal-halide bond lengths for CsSnBr3 and cation orientation for MASnBr(3), thus showing the impact of a different A-cation on the pressure response. Finally, the investigated phases, differently from the analogous Pb-based counterparts, are robust against amorphization showing defined diffraction up to the maximum pressure used in the experiments.

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