Hybrid halide perovskites have rapidly established themselves as a leading thin-film photovoltaic technology. In barely a decade, the hybrid organic-inorganic halide perovskite solar cell achieved to compete with all mature crystalline technologies, by reaching a certified 27.0 % power conversion efficiency (PCE) on cells and 20.6 % PCE on small modules.¹ Perovskite’s strength stem from their remarkable opto-electronic properties. However, the technology still requires significant attentions regarding stability, in particular rapid structural and electronic degradation can be engendered when exposed to various external stressors (temperature2-3, humidity4-6, light7-8, electrical bias9). 

To cope with the long-term stability issue, it is a paramount to precisely understand the multiple degradation pathways of the perovskite upon and during the external stressing. To this end, in situ or operando characterization techniques are central tools. In this communication, we will be discussing the degradation of different perovskite composition on the basis of humidity or temperature-controlled in situ x-ray diffraction and corroborated with in situ electron spin resonance spectroscopy and in situ transmission electron microscopy. For example, one key finding which we will discuss is that α-FAPbI₃ degradation is substantially accelerated when temperature is combined to illumination and when it is interfaced with the extraction layers, and, second the existence of a temperature gap region which takes place only under illumination involving an intermediate stage between the thermal-induced perovskite degradation and the formation of PbI₂ by-product.¹⁰

References:

(1)          NREL, PV research. Best Research Cell Efficiency Chart. https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html (accessed 2024-12-17).

(2)          Ava, T. T.; Al Mamun, A.; Marsillac, S.; Namkoong, G. Applied Sciences 2019, 9 (1), 188.

(3)          Ma, L.; Guo, D.; Li, M.; Wang, C.; Zhou, Z.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, F.; Ao, Z.; Nie, Z. Chem. Mater. 2019, 31 (20), 8515–8522

(4)          Lin, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, M.; Steele, J. A.; Louisia, S.; Yu, S.; Quan, L. N.; Lin, C.-K.; Limmer, D. T.; Yang, P. Matter 2021, 4 (7), 2392–2402

(5)          Akman, E.; Shalan, A. E.; Sadegh, F.; Akin, S. ChemSusChem 2021, 14 (4), 1176–1183.

(6)          Akhavan Kazemi, M. A.; Raval, P.; Cherednichekno, K.; Chotard, J.-N.; Krishna, A.; Demortiere, A.; Reddy, G. N. M.; Sauvage, F. Small Methods 2021, 5 (2), 2000834

(7)          Emelianov, N. A.; Ozerova, V. V.; Zhidkov, I. S.; Korchagin, D. V.; Shilov, G. V.; Litvinov, A. L.; Kurmaev, E. Z.; Frolova, L. A.; Aldoshin, S. M.; Troshin, P. A. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2022, 13 (12), 2744–2749.

(8)          Akbulatov, A. F.; Luchkin, S. Yu.; Frolova, L. A.; Dremova, N. N.; Gerasimov, K. L.; Zhidkov, I. S.; Anokhin, D. V.; Kurmaev, E. Z.; Stevenson, K. J.; Troshin, P. A. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8 (6), 1211–1218.