4.6 Article

Revisiting the nanocrystal formation process of zero-dimensional perovskite

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 4658-4663

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1ta00428j

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21805111]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2020YQ12]
  3. Taishan Scholar Project of Shandong Province [tsqn201812082]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the luminescent mechanism of Cs4PbBr6 by analyzing the real-time formation process of nanocrystals, identifying two stages in the process and extracting the activation energy for the transformation. The observation of transformation from white to black spots suggests that the black spots are responsible for photoluminescence emission, despite their amorphous nature.
The nanocrystal (NC) form of zero-dimensional perovskite (Cs4PbBr6) has attracted a great deal of attention due to both its elusive green emission and phase-pure nature, which has posed a major challenge to the impurity theory used to explain CsPbBr3 being an emitter. In this work, we revisit the NC formation process in real time by using an in situ photoluminescence (PL) monitoring system. Through analyzing the evolution of the PL spectra, the formation process was divided into two stages, namely the nucleation stage and growing stage, which were well explained by the LaMer mechanism and the Ostwald ripening model. In addition, the Johnson-Mehl-Avrami (JMA) model was used to simulate the transformation from non-emissive Cs4PbBr6 to green-emitting Cs4PbBr6, and the ensuing activation energy (E-a = 39.0 +/- 5.0 kJ mol(-1)) was extracted. Importantly, an accompanied transformation from white spots to black spots was observed, which suggested that the black spots were responsible for PL emission despite their amorphous nature. Our work represents a step forward in unraveling the PL origin of the Cs4PbBr6 phase, although the nature of the white and black spots remained elusive.

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