Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 148 references

Performance Analysis of Double Perovskite-Based Solar Cells Using SCAPS-1D Simulation: A brief review

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a survey of SCAPS-1D simulations of eleven lead-free double-perovskite absorbers pins down the design rules that push efficiency above 32%.

desk verdict A review that compiles SCAPS-1D results but promotes design rules from simulations it itself warns are unreliable—useful as a survey, not as a source of design targets. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04736 v1 pith:CWE5KP6C submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

H. Laltlanmawii , Lalrem Kima , Mahabur Rahman , Md. Ferdous Rahman , Dilshod Nematov , S. Bhattarai , C. V. M. Chaturvedi , Yazen M. Alawaideh
show 2 more authors
A. Laref D. P. Rai
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords lead-freedoubleperovskitesSCAPS-1Dsimulationsolarcelldesignrulespowerconversionefficiencybandgapoptimizationdefectdensitychargetransportlayers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review paper asks what simulations can tell us about why lead-free double-perovskite solar cells lag their lead-based cousins and how to close the gap. Surveying SCAPS-1D studies of eleven double-perovskite absorbers, it claims to identify a consistent set of design rules: a bandgap window of 1.5 to 1.8 eV, bulk defect densities below $10^{15}$ $cm^{-3}$, absorber thicknesses of 500 to 900 nm, and high-mobility electron and hole transport layers. When these conditions are met, simulated devices reach power conversion efficiencies above 32%. The authors also stress that these predictions inherit the accuracy of their input parameters, and that SCAPS cannot capture 3D effects such as grain boundaries. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's core message as: computational screening can point experimentalists to concrete targets for lead-free photovoltaics.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is SCAPS-1D, a one-dimensional Solar Cell Capacitance Simulator that solves the semiconductor drift-diffusion and Poisson equations to produce a device's J–V curve and photovoltaic parameters. The paper uses it as a virtual test bed: material inputs (bandgap, electron affinity, effective density of states, dielectric constant, mobilities, absorption coefficient, defect levels) are supplied from density functional theory and prior literature, then the simulator maps how variations in bandgap, thickness, defect density, and transport-layer properties change efficiency. The central identity doing the work is the Shockley–Read–Hall recombination model, which the paper highlights as the main mechanism by which defects and interface states drag down open-circuit voltage and fill factor.

What would settle it

Fabricate a Cs2CdPbI6 device with a near-1.8 eV bandgap, 500–900 nm absorber, measured bulk defect density below $10^{15}$ $cm^{-3}$, and high-mobility SnO2/CuI transport layers, and compare its measured efficiency and J–V curve with the simulated one; a large shortfall (say, below 20% PCE) would show the design rules do not transfer from SCAPS to real cells.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a set of quantitative design windows for lead-free double-perovskite solar cells derived from the survey of SCAPS-1D simulations. The optimum absorber bandgap ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 eV, which balances photocurrent against open-circuit voltage; bulk defect densities must stay below $10^{15}$ $cm^{-3}$ to avoid severe recombination; absorber thickness should fall between 500 and 900 nm to absorb light without extending transport paths; and transport layers with high carrier mobility and favorable band alignment, such as WS2, ZnSe, SnO2, ZnO, CuSCN, and CuI, are needed to suppress interfacial recombination. With these conditions met, the simulations report efficiencies over 32% (for Cs2CdPbI6 in particular), values that the authors present as the practical potential of the material family.

Load-bearing premise

The design rules stand or fall with SCAPS-1D's ability to predict real device physics from user-supplied parameters; if the chosen defect densities, mobilities, and recombination rates are not physically achievable, the rules describe simulation artifacts rather than working solar cells.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Experimentally, the rules set specific targets: grow absorbers with 1.5–1.8 eV bandgaps, keep bulk defect densities below 10^15 cm^-3, and use high-mobility transport layers such as SnO2, WS2, or CuI.
  • If the design rules hold, lead-free double perovskites could approach the efficiency of lead-based perovskites while avoiding toxicity and improving stability.
  • The review's caution about non-physical SCAPS parameters implies that reported 'record' efficiencies in the literature should be treated as suspect unless inputs are anchored to realistic DFT or experimental data.
  • Standardized simulation practices, including realistic defect densities and AM1.5G anchoring, would make future SCAPS studies more comparable and more reliable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A reader could push further: the 1.5–1.8 eV window coincides with the Shockley–Queisser optimum for single junctions, so the simulation results may partly reflect thermodynamic fundamentals rather than material-specific physics; the distinguishing test is whether real devices hit the predicted J–V shapes.
  • The >32% figure for Cs2CdPbI6 sits at the edge of the Shockley–Queisser limit for a 1.8 eV gap, meaning the claimed performance is near the physical ceiling; a small change in input parameters could push it into the non-physical regime the paper warns about.
  • The same screening workflow could be extended to unexplored A2BB'X6 compositions, using the defect-density and thickness windows as filters before any synthesis is attempted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a literature review of SCAPS-1D simulations applied to lead-free double-perovskite solar cells. It surveys the structural, electronic, and optical properties of double perovskites, then compiles reported simulation results for eleven absorber materials (Table 2). The central claims, stated in the abstract and repeated in the Conclusions, are that the optimal absorber band-gap window is 1.5–1.8 eV, bulk defect densities should be below 10^15 cm^-3, absorber thicknesses should be 500–900 nm, and high-mobility transport layers are needed to reach power conversion efficiencies above 32%, with Cs2CdPbI6 specifically cited as exceeding 32%. The paper includes no original SCAPS-1D simulations, no input-parameter tables, and no device stack definitions; its quantitative 'results' are restatements of cited papers. It also contains sections on SCAPS-1D limitations, challenges, strategies, and other perovskite applications.

Significance. If the claimed design rules were supported by a reproducible, quality-controlled simulation corpus, they would be useful guidance for the lead-free double-perovskite community. The review does assemble a broad bibliography and includes a welcome, explicit acknowledgment in Sections 7.5.3 and 8 that SCAPS-1D can generate non-physical efficiencies above the Shockley–Queisser limit when input parameters are unrealistic. However, the paper’s central quantitative claims are not accompanied by any simulation data, controlled comparison, or quality filter, and they contradict the manuscript’s own warnings about the unreliability of the cited SCAPS literature. As it stands, the paper does not establish the band-gap, defect-density, thickness, or efficiency rules that it advertises, so its significance for guiding device design is not demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §7.5.3; §8; §12] The abstract and Conclusions promote as 'long-term simulation results' the design rules of a 1.5–1.8 eV band gap, defect densities below 10^15 cm^-3, absorber thicknesses of 500–900 nm, and PCEs greater than 32%. Yet Section 7.5.3 and Section 8 explicitly state that many SCAPS perovskite simulations produce efficiencies far above realistic values, some exceeding the Shockley–Queisser limit, because of unrealistic defect densities, recombination rates, and doping levels. The manuscript applies no quality screen to the cited simulations before adopting these values. This is a load-bearing contradiction: if the high efficiencies come from the non-physical parameter regime the paper itself identifies, the advertised design rules are artifacts of an unfiltered database. The authors must either apply and document a quality filter (e.g., comparison with the Shockley–Queisser bound, experimental PCEs, and required parameter tables) or refrain from presenting these literature values as robust simulation findings.
  2. [§7.1; Table 2] There is an internal inconsistency for Cs2InAgBr6: Section 7.1 reports a simulated PCE of 26.64% when coupled with ZnSe and MASnBr3, citing reference [91], while Table 2 lists Cs2InAgBr6 with a peak PCE of 19.26%, also citing [91]. The text then says 'Though Cs2InAgBr6 has a similar bandgap (1.62 eV), the effective masses are different, causing a slightly lower PCE of 19.26%,' but this does not reconcile the two numbers. Since the same absorber and same reference yield two different peak values in the same manuscript, the quantitative corpus is not being used consistently. The authors need to identify which value is the peak, under which specific device stack, and resolve the discrepancy before any efficiency claims can be credited.
  3. [Abstract; §7; Table 2; §7.5.2] The manuscript claims to present simulation-based performance analysis, but no original SCAPS-1D simulation is reported. There are no device-stack definitions, no input parameters (band gaps, electron affinities, effective masses, absorption coefficients, defect densities, doping, or interface defect parameters), no J–V curves, and no thickness or defect-density scans. Section 7.5.2 correctly states that SCAPS requires a comprehensive set of material parameters as inputs, yet Table 2 is a compilation of peak efficiencies from eleven heterogeneous papers with no common simulation setup. The claimed thickness range of 500–900 nm and the defect-density threshold of 10^15 cm^-3 are therefore not substantiated by any controlled simulation evidence in this manuscript; they are conclusions lifted from the cited literature. The authors should either include the underlying simulation data or clearly relabel these statements as literature-derived observations and evaluate them as such.
  4. [Table 2; §7.3.2; §7.1] The design rules are derived from an uncontrolled corpus: the eleven entries in Table 2 come from papers with different ETL/HTL choices, different defect parameters, different doping concentrations, and potentially different versions of SCAPS-1D. For example, Cs2CdPbI6 is listed at 32%, La2NiMnO6 at 25.4%, and Cs2AgBiBr6 at 26.3%, but the text does not report the simulation conditions under which these values were obtained. Without a controlled comparison or at least a table of the input parameters used in each cited study, the paper cannot support the claim that the 1.5–1.8 eV window, the 500–900 nm thickness range, and the 10^15 cm^-3 defect threshold are general findings for double-perovskite absorbers. The authors should either provide a parameter-by-parameter comparison across the eleven studies or explicitly state that the ranges are unsystematic summaries of heterogeneous literature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4] The double-perovskite formula is written as A2M(I)+M(III)3+X2; it should be A2M(I)M(III)X6 (or A2BB'X6). This typo appears in the introduction and should be corrected.
  2. [§7.5.3] The text mentions 'TiO3 (ETL)' when discussing typical transport layers; the intended material is TiO2. Please correct this typo.
  3. [§2; §7.5.3; §8] Section 2 states that multi-junction cells can exceed the Shockley–Queisser limit, while Sections 7.5.3 and 8 treat exceeding the Shockley–Queisser limit as a sign of non-physical simulation. These statements are not contradictory if the former refers to tandem or multi-junction devices and the latter to single-junction SCAPS models, but the manuscript should state this distinction explicitly.
  4. [Figures 10 and 11] Figures 10 and 11 are referenced as radar and comparison charts, but the manuscript does not describe their axes, units, or data sources. The figures should be made self-contained, with a caption explaining what is plotted and from which references the plotted values were taken.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous language and formatting issues, including 'du to', 'P bI2', 'produces' instead of 'produce', and inconsistent spacing in Table 2 entries such as '32[92]'. A careful language and formatting edit is needed before resubmission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a literature review whose conclusions restate cited SCAPS studies, but no derivation reduces to its own inputs or to self-citations.

full rationale

This is a review paper, not an original derivation. It performs no new SCAPS-1D simulations and no parameter fits; its central claims (bandgap window 1.5-1.8 eV, defect density below 10^15 cm^-3, thickness 500-900 nm, PCE over 32%) are compiled from the cited literature and presented as a synthesis. Restating literature conclusions is the normal function of a review and does not constitute circular reasoning: no quantity is defined in terms of another, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by the authors' prior work. The self-citations that appear (e.g., refs. [15], [16], [121]-[125]) are in background or comparative contexts and do not support the central bandgap/defect/efficiency claims. The internal tension between the abstract's adoption of ">32% PCE" and Section 7.5.3's warning that many SCAPS perovskite simulations exceed the Shockley-Queisser limit due to nonphysical parameters is a correctness and reliability concern, not a circularity. The paper's aggregate Table 2 is a compilation of heterogeneous cited results, but compiling inputs and then summarizing them is not a derivation loop. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities because it performs no original simulation or derivation. Its central claims rest entirely on the validity of SCAPS-1D as a predictive tool, the accuracy of DFT- and literature-derived input parameters, and the trustworthiness of the cited simulations. These are domain assumptions not independently verified in this manuscript.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SCAPS-1D one-dimensional drift-diffusion simulation is a valid model for predicting double-perovskite solar cell performance.
    The entire paper's conclusions depend on SCAPS-1D outputs being physically meaningful. Section 7.5.3 and Section 8 acknowledge that SCAPS has known limitations and can give non-physical efficiencies when parameters are unrealistic.
  • domain assumption Input parameters (band gap, electron affinity, mobilities, defect densities) taken from DFT and prior literature are realistic and representative of actual double-perovskite materials.
    Section 7.5.2 states that SCAPS requires user-supplied parameters and that assuming or guessing these values leads to inaccurate predictions. The paper relies on values from cited DFT and SCAPS studies without independent validation.
  • domain assumption The cited SCAPS simulations used physically reasonable parameter sets and did not artificially inflate efficiency.
    The paper compiles peak efficiencies from multiple independent papers (e.g., [84] to [94]) and treats them as reliable. However, Section 7.5.3 warns that many SCAPS perovskite simulations produce exaggerated efficiencies, which casts doubt on the cited values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance Analysis of Double Perovskite-Based Solar Cells Using SCAPS-1D Simulation: A brief review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CWE5KP6C

@misc{pith2026260804736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance Analysis of Double Perovskite-Based Solar Cells Using SCAPS-1D Simulation: A brief review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CWE5KP6C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04736}
}
read the original abstract

Lead-free double perovskites are among the rapidly developing next-generation solar cell technologies, providing the required low toxicity, stability, as well as high optoelectronic potential. So far, experimentally prepared lead-free perovskite solar cell devices are reported to have low power conversion efficiency (PCE) for practical application as compared to the lead-based perovskites. In recent years, numerical simulations have emerged as a cost-effective approach that plays a crucial role in expediting scientific research, can bridge the gap between experiment and theory, and provide predictive information regarding the preparation of solar cells and their PCEs without undergoing real-time experiments. The tools, such as 1D numerical simulation software SCAPS-1D, are now needed to test newer architectures and determine what exactly is holding them back. So far in the field of solar cell research, SCAPS-1D has been extensively used and looks like a powerful software due to its user-friendliness and simulation of results in a few seconds. The speed and ease of simulation make SCAPS-1D a very popular tool; as a result, it enables rapid optimization of a large number of photovoltaic devices and their performances without undergoing any experimental work, which can save time and money. However, one serious drawback is that the SCAPS-1D simulator works only for 1D configurations. It is ineffective in incorporating atomistic interactions and 3D effects. Hence, the efficacy of the SCAPS-1D simulator solely relies on the accuracy of the input parameters that the user provides, failing which may give wrong results and large deviations from accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sandwich model of solar cell Solar cells are applicable in all sectors for power generation: 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solar panel in everyday use for generating electricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Band structure of different materials 3. Different types of solar cells Fig4 shows the different types of solar cell. They are classified into three generations as given below: 3.1. First-generation solar cells These are solar cells based on crystalline silicon wafers. These cells dominate the global photovoltaic market and achieve the highest efficiencies among commercial technologies due to exceptional performance… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different types of solar cells 4. Perovskite Solar cell Perovskite materials have transformed the field of optoelectronics du to their tunability in band gaps, outstanding optoelectronic behaviour, and highly adaptable crystal structures. Modern PSCs have now achieved …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Year-wise number of publications and increase in their efficiencies of perovskite solar cells. Reprinted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Companies involved in the production of perovskite solar cells and countries employed in the field of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Working mechanism of perovskite solar cells [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Family tree of Perovskite materials 5.1. Single Perovskites Single perovskites have the general formula of ABX3, where the A-cation typically occupies a large octahedral cavity, the B-cation sits at the centre of an octahedron, and the X-anion forms the coordinated oct…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Different types of Perovskite materials: (a)Crystal structures of an ideal cubic perovskite and dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Bandgap Analysis of various double perovskites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Band-gap and performance comparison of double perovskite absorber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [91]

    Abrar, I

    M. Abrar, I. Biswas and D. Hodges,Journal of Electronic Materials, 2025,54, 4357–4365

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    S. V. Feigin, D. O. Wiebers, G. Lueddeke, S. Morand, K. Lee, A. Knight, M. Brainin, V. L. Feigin, A. Whitfort, J. Marcum, T. K. Shackelford, L. F. Skerratt and A. S. Winkler, Heliyon, 2023,9, e20544

    2023

  3. [2]

    K. K. Jaiswal, C. R. Chowdhury, D. Yadav, R. Verma, S. Dutta, K. S. Jaiswal, SangmeshB and K. S. K. Karuppasamy,Energy Nexus, 2022,7, 100118

    2022

  4. [3]

    Ebhota and P

    W. Ebhota and P. Tabakov,Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 2023,14, 101984

    2023

  5. [4]

    Kung, M.-H

    P.-K. Kung, M.-H. Li, P.-Y. Lin, J.-Y. Jhang, M. Pantaler, D. C. Lupascu, G. Grancini and P. Chen,Solar RRL, 2020,4, 1900306

    2020

  6. [5]

    Y. Liu, K. Li, B. Zhou, X. Li and P. Li,Results in Engineering, 2025,27, 106322

    2025

  7. [6]

    Ghosh,Energy 360, 2025,4, 100039

    A. Ghosh,Energy 360, 2025,4, 100039

    2025

  8. [7]

    G. V. Bhau, R. G. Deshmukh, T. R. kumar, S. Chowdhury, Y. Sesharao and Y. Abil- mazhinov,Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023,80, 3697–3701

    2023

Show all 148 references
  1. [8]

    El Hammoumi, S

    A. El Hammoumi, S. Chtita, S. Motahhir and A. El Ghzizal,Energy Reports, 2022,8, 11992–12010

    2022

  2. [9]

    Meena, A

    R. Meena, A. Pareek and R. Gupta,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2024, 189, 113944

    2024

  3. [10]

    L. Hima, B. Lalroliana, A. Chinggelkim, L. Kimi, R. Zosiamliana, C. Lalengmawia, R. C. Tiwari and Lalhriatzuala,New J. Chem., 2025,49, 14284–14299

    2025

  4. [11]

    P. P. Sanap, S. P. Gupta, S. S. Kahandal, J. L. Gunjakar, C. D. Lokhande, B. R. Sankapal, Z. Said, R. N. Bulakhe, J. Man Kim and A. B. Bhalerao,Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 2024,129, 124–142

    2024

  5. [12]

    Matakgane, T

    M. Matakgane, T. Mokoena and M. Mhlongo,Inorganic Chemistry Communications, 2023,156, 111202

    2023

  6. [13]

    Lalroliana, L

    B. Lalroliana, L. chhana, L. hima, R. Zosiamliana, S. Gurung and L. zuala,Materials Research Bulletin, 2024,180, 113054

    2024

  7. [14]

    Agrawal, S

    A. Agrawal, S. A. Siddiqui, A. Soni and G. D. Sharma,Solar Energy, 2022,233, 378–407

    2022

  8. [15]

    Laltlanmawii, L

    H. Laltlanmawii, L. Celestine, R. Zosiamliana, S. Bhattarai, M. E. Tursunov, A. T. Dekhkonov, Z. Pachuau and D. P. Rai,Current Indian Science, 2025,3, 1–17

    2025

  9. [16]

    Laltlanmawii, L

    H. Laltlanmawii, L. Celestine, R. Zosiamliana, B. Chettri, S. Bhattarai, K. Bhamu and D. Rai,Surfaces and Interfaces, 2026,95, 109774. 31

    2026

  10. [17]

    P. Asif, A. Chetia, D. Saikia and S. Sahu,Discover Electronics, 2025,2, 44

    2025

  11. [18]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. Thorbole and R. K. Gupta,Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing, 2025,185, 108943

    2025

  12. [19]

    M. V. Dambhare, B. Butey and S. V. Moharil,Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021,1913, 012053

    2021

  13. [20]

    Rathore, N

    N. Rathore, N. L. Panwar, F. Yettou and A. Gama,International Journal of Ambient Energy, 2021,42, 1200–1217

    2021

  14. [21]

    W. A. Badawy,Journal of Advanced Research, 2015,6, 123–132

    2015

  15. [22]

    T. D. Lee and A. U. Ebong,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017,70, 1286– 1297

    2017

  16. [23]

    Dhilipan, N

    J. Dhilipan, N. Vijayalakshmi, D. Shanmugam, R. Jai Ganesh, S. Kodeeswaran and S. Mu- ralidharan,Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022,66, 1295–1302

    2022

  17. [24]

    Soonmin, Hardani, P

    H. Soonmin, Hardani, P. Nandi, B. S. Mwankemwa, T. D. Malevu and M. I. Malik,Applied Sciences, 2023,13, 2051

    2023

  18. [25]

    Wu and F

    P. Wu and F. Zhang,Advanced Functional Materials, 2025,35, 2507644

    2025

  19. [26]

    Zhang, M

    L. Zhang, M. Zhang, H. Wang, Z. Li, Z. Zhang, Y. Song, X. Song, S. Wang, J. Chen, W. Li, H. Dong, F. Wang, Y. Liu, X. Li, J. Yuan, W. Ma, Y. Zhang, S. F. Liu, F. Gao, Z. Wu, Z. Yang, F. Hao, K. Zhao, Z. Jin, K. Yan, J. Chang, J. Cao, J. Wang, X. Zhang, Q. Dong, P. Gao, Y. Zhao...

    2026

  20. [27]

    N. K. Noel, S. D. Stranks, A. Abate, C. Wehrenfennig, S. Guarnera, A.-A. Haghighirad, A. Sadhanala, G. E. Eperon, S. K. Pathak, M. B. Johnston, A. Petrozza, L. M. Herz and H. J. Snaith,Energy & Environmental Science, 2014,7, 3061–3068

    2014

  21. [28]

    Roknuzzaman, K

    M. Roknuzzaman, K. K. Ostrikov, K. Chandula Wasalathilake, C. Yan, H. Wang and T. Tesfamichael,Organic Electronics, 2018,59, 99–106

    2018

  22. [29]

    C. W. Ahn, J. H. Jo, J. Chan Kim, H.Ullah, S. Ryu, Y. Hwang, J. San Choi, J. Lee, S. Lee, H. Jeen, Y.-H. Shin, H. Y. Jeong, I. W. Kim and T. H. Kim,Journal of Materiomics, 2020,6, 651–660

    2020

  23. [30]

    Q. Liao, J. Chen, L. Zhou, T. Wei, L. Zhang, D. Chen, F. Huang, Q. Pang and J. Z. Zhang,The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2020,11, 8392–8398

    2020

  24. [31]

    G. Tang, Z. Xiao, H. Hosono, T. Kamiya, D. Fang and J. Hong,The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2017,9, 43–48

    2017

  25. [32]

    Babayigit, A

    A. Babayigit, A. Ethirajan, M. Muller and B. Conings,Nature Materials, 2016,15, 247– 251. 32

    2016

  26. [33]

    Volonakis, M

    G. Volonakis, M. R. Filip, A. A. Haghighirad, N. Sakai, B. Wenger, H. J. Snaith and F. Giustino,The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2016,7, 1254–1259

    2016

  27. [34]

    E. T. McClure, M. R. Ball, W. Windl and P. M. Woodward,Chemistry of Materials, 2016,28, 1348–1354

    2016

  28. [35]

    L. Chu, W. Ahmad, W. Liu, J. Yang, R. Zhang, Y. Sun, J. Yang and X. Li,Nano-Micro Letters, 2019,11, 16

    2019

  29. [36]

    Q. Sun, H. Chen and W.-J. Yin,Chemistry of Materials, 2019,31, 244–250

    2019

  30. [37]

    Longo, S

    G. Longo, S. Mahesh, L. R. V. Buizza, A. D. Wright, A. J. Ramadan, M. Abdi-Jalebi, P. K. Nayak, L. M. Herz and H. J. Snaith,ACS Energy Letters, 2020,5, 2200–2207

    2020

  31. [38]

    Sanga, C

    L. Sanga, C. Lalengmawia, Z. Renthlei, S. T. Chanu, L. Hima, N. S. Singh, A. Yvaz, S. Bhattarai and D. Rai,Next Materials, 2025,7, 100494

    2025

  32. [39]

    M. A. Green and A. Ho-Baillie,ACS Energy Letters, 2017,2, 822–830

    2017

  33. [40]

    Kojima, K

    A. Kojima, K. Teshima, Y. Shirai and T. Miyasaka,Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2009,131, 6050–6051

    2009

  34. [41]

    Calió, S

    L. Calió, S. Kazim, M. Grätzel and S. Ahmad,Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2016,55, 14522–14545

    2016

  35. [42]

    Chouhan, S

    L. Chouhan, S. Ghimire, C. Subrahmanyam, T. Miyasaka and V. Biju,Chem. Soc. Rev., 2020,49, 2869–2885

    2020

  36. [43]

    Noman, A

    M. Noman, A. Khan and S. Jan,Scientific Reports, 2024,14, 5449

    2024

  37. [44]

    Chang, D

    Q. Chang, D. Bao, B. Chen, H. Hu, X. Chen, H. Sun, Y. Lam, J.-X. Zhu, D. Zhao and E. Chia,Communications Physics, 2022,5, 187

    2022

  38. [45]

    Mohammadi, S

    S. Mohammadi, S. Akbari Nia and D. Abbaszadeh,Scientific Reports, 2024,14, 24254

    2024

  39. [46]

    Mujahid, M

    A. Mujahid, M. Y. H. Khan, M. M. Uddin, F. Alhashmi Alamer, O. Alsalmi, M. Rashe- duzzaman and M. Z. Hasan,RSC Adv., 2025,15, 32679–32707

    2025

  40. [47]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Singh, A. Sharma and E. M. Ahmed,Optical Materials, 2022,132, 112846

    2022

  41. [48]

    Y. Wu, D. Wang, J. Liu and H. Cai,Nanomaterials, 2021,11, 775

    2021

  42. [49]

    A. Raj, M. Kumar, D. Singh, B. Singh, D. Dwivedi and A. Anshul,Scientific Reports, 2025,15, 32868

    2025

  43. [50]

    R. A. Afre and D. Pugliese,Micromachines, 2024,15, 192

    2024

  44. [51]

    P. Fu, Q. Shan, Y. Shang, J. Song, H. Zeng, Z. Ning and J. Gong,Science Bulletin, 2017, 62, 369–380

    2017

  45. [52]

    Brunckova, L

    H. Brunckova, L. Medvecky, J. Briancin, J. Durisin, E. Mudra, M. Sebek, A. Kovalcikova and T. Sopcak,Materials Letters, 2016,165, 239–242. 33

    2016

  46. [53]

    Esposito,Materials, 2019,12, 668

    S. Esposito,Materials, 2019,12, 668

    2019

  47. [54]

    Ohara, A

    S. Ohara, A. Kondo, H. Shimoda, K. Sato, H. Abe and M. Naito,Materials Letters, 2008, 62, 2957–2959

    2008

  48. [55]

    Celestine, R

    L. Celestine, R. Zosiamliana, B. Lalroliana, L. Hima, S. Gurung, L. Zuala, L. Vanchhawng, A. Laref and D. Rai,Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2025,343, 130961

    2025

  49. [56]

    L. Puia, L. Kimi, A. Chinggelkim, R. Zosiamliana, L. Hima, C. Lalengmawia, L. Thara, S. Gurung and L. Zuala,New Journal of Chemistry, 2026,50, 6721–6733

    2026

  50. [57]

    Lalroliana, Lalmuanchhana, R

    Lalhumhima, B. Lalroliana, Lalmuanchhana, R. Zosiamliana, D. P. Rai, R. C. Tiwari and Lalhriatzuala,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2024,36, 485901

    2024

  51. [58]

    Kashikar, P

    R. Kashikar, P. S. Ghosh, S. Lisenkov, B. R. K. Nanda and I. Ponomareva,Phys. Rev. B, 2021,104, 235132

    2021

  52. [59]

    Wei and Z

    Q. Wei and Z. Ning,ACS Materials Letters, 2021,3, 1266–1275

    2021

  53. [60]

    Chinggelkim, R

    A. Chinggelkim, R. Zosiamliana, L. Kimi, L. Hima, B. Lalroliana, L. Pachuau, S. Gurung and L. Zuala,Journal of Electronic Materials, 2025,55, 2086–2099

    2025

  54. [61]

    Fu,Advanced Materials, 2022,34, 2108556

    Y. Fu,Advanced Materials, 2022,34, 2108556

    2022

  55. [62]

    V. M. Goldschmidt,Naturwissenschaften, 1926,14, 477–485

    1926

  56. [63]

    B. H. Kim and B. I. Min,Phys. Rev. B, 2009,80, 064416

    2009

  57. [64]

    H.J.Song, H.Yoon, B.JuandD.-W.Kim,Advanced Energy Materials, 2021,11, 2002428

    2021

  58. [65]

    Vasala and M

    S. Vasala and M. Karppinen,Progress in Solid State Chemistry, 2015,43, 1–36

    2015

  59. [66]

    M. T. Anderson, K. B. Greenwood, G. A. Taylor and K. R. Poeppelmeier,Progress in Solid State Chemistry, 1993,22, 197–233

    1993

  60. [67]

    King and P

    G. King and P. M. Woodward,Journal of Materials Chemistry, 2010,20, 5785–5796

    2010

  61. [68]

    A. M. Glazer,Acta Crystallographica Section B, 1972,28, 3384–3392

    1972

  62. [69]

    Serrate, J

    D. Serrate, J. M. De Teresa and M. R. Ibarra,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 2006,19, 023201

    2006

  63. [70]

    Witczak-Krempa, G

    W. Witczak-Krempa, G. Chen, Y. B. Kim and L. Balents,Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 2014,5, 57–82

    2014

  64. [71]

    Cao and P

    G. Cao and P. Schlottmann,Reports on Progress in Physics, 2018,81, 042502

    2018

  65. [72]

    A. H. Slavney, T. Hu, A. M. Lindenberg and H. I. Karunadasa,Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2016,138, 2138–2141

    2016

  66. [73]

    C. J. Bartel, C. Sutton, B. R. Goldsmith, R. Ouyang, C. B. Musgrave, L. M. Ghiringhelli and M. Scheffler,Science Advances, 2019,5, eaav0693. 34

    2019

  67. [74]

    W. Li, Z. Wang, F. Deschler, S. Gao, R. Friend and A. Cheetham,Nature Reviews Mate- rials, 2017,2, 16099

    2017

  68. [75]

    Yu,Journal of Physics: Energy, 2019,1, 022001

    C.-J. Yu,Journal of Physics: Energy, 2019,1, 022001

    2019

  69. [76]

    R. E. Brandt, J. R. Poindexter, P. Gorai, R. C. Kurchin, R. L. Z. Hoye, L. Nienhaus, M. W. B. Wilson, J. A. Polizzotti, R. Sereika, R. Zaltauskas, L. C. Lee, J. L. MacManus- Driscoll, M. Bawendi, V. Stevanovicc and T. Buonassisi,Chemistry of Materials, 2017, 29, 4667–4674

    2017

  70. [77]

    Krishna, S

    A. Krishna, S. Gottis, M. K. Nazeeruddin and F. Sauvage,Advanced Functional Materials, 2019,29, 1806482

    2019

  71. [78]

    Raturi, P

    A. Raturi, P. Mittal and S. Choudhary,Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing, 2026,203, 110250

    2026

  72. [79]

    Chen and N.-G

    J. Chen and N.-G. Park,Advanced Materials, 2019,31, 1803019

    2019

  73. [80]

    Singh, Laxmi and D

    S. Singh, Laxmi and D. Kabra,Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 2020,53, 503003

    2020

  74. [81]

    A. U. I. Shah and E. L. Meyer,Solar Energy, 2025,286, 113172

    2025

  75. [82]

    R. Chen, J. Li, W. Zhao and Y. Lei,Materials Today Electronics, 2026,15, 100193

    2026

  76. [83]

    Ullah, M

    A. Ullah, M. Iftikhar Khan, I. ul haq, B. S. Almutairi, D. B. N. AlResheedi and J. R. Choi,ACS Omega, 2024,9, 18202–18211

    2024

  77. [84]

    K. I. Ferdous Utsho, S. M. G. Mostafa, M. Tarekuzzaman, M. S. M. Al-Saleem, N. I. Nahid, J. Y. Al-Humaidi, M. Rasheduzzaman, M. M. Rahman and M. Z. Hasan,RSC Adv., 2025,15, 2184–2204

    2025

  78. [85]

    Assiouan, H

    K. Assiouan, H. Ziani, J. el Khamkhami and A. Achahbar,Solar Energy and Sustainable Development Journal, 2025,14, 91–104

    2025

  79. [86]

    M. K. Shahzad, S. Hussain, M. Riaz, H. Sattar, G. A. Ashraf, W. Azeem, S. M. Ali and M. Alam,Heliyon, 2024,10, e29143

    2024

  80. [87]

    Singh, V

    A. Singh, V. Srivastava, S. Agarwal, P. Lohia, D. Dwivedi, A. Umar, A. Ibrahim, S. Akbar, S. Baskoutas and P. K. Dakua,Journal of Optics, 2023,53, 3695–3707

    2023

  81. [88]

    M. H. Miah, M. U. Khandaker, M. B. Rahman, M. Nur-E-Alam and M. A. Islam,RSC Adv., 2024,14, 15876–15906

    2024

  82. [89]

    Sabbah, Z

    H. Sabbah, Z. Abdel Baki, R. Mezher and J. Arayro,Nanomaterials, 2024,14, 48

    2024

  83. [90]

    Hossen, M

    M. Hossen, M. Rahman, M. Miah, N. Ashrafi, H. Hamzah, S. Said, S. Hatta and M. Islam, Journal of Optics, 2025

    2025

  84. [92]

    Mohamed, A

    G. Mohamed, A. Amina, H. Ali, H. Bendjilali and O. Zerrouki,Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials, 2025,35, 4616–4630. 35

    2025

  85. [93]

    M. F. Rahman, M. A. Rahman, M. Z. Bani-Fwaz, M. F. Hossain, N. Badi, A. R. Chaudhry and A. Irfan,RSC Adv., 2025,15, 38122–38133

    2025

  86. [94]

    J. L. Prasanna, A. Kumar, R. K. M., K. Gayathri, C. Santhosh, S. V. Aswin Kumer, E. Mohan and S. Udayakumar,International Journal of Energy Research, 2024,2024, 3942154

    2024

  87. [95]

    M. E. M. Soudagar, A. Sharma, N. Nagarajan, M. Vinayagam, R. Venkatesh, S. H. Salmen and T. A. Alahmadi,Journal of Power Sources, 2025,639, 236657

    2025

  88. [96]

    N. K. Sinha, D. S. Ghosh and A. Khare,Optical Materials, 2022,129, 112517

    2022

  89. [97]

    Medjaldi, A

    F. Medjaldi, A. Bouabellou, Y. Bouachiba, A. Taabouche, K. Bouatia and H. Serrar, Materials Research Express, 2020,7, 016439

    2020

  90. [98]

    Tripathi, B

    S. Tripathi, B. Kumar and D. Dwivedi,Optik, 2021,227, 166087

    2021

  91. [99]

    J. Lee, S. Bae, S. Shin and S.-Y. Lee,Applied Surface Science Advances, 2025,29, 100827

    2025

  92. [100]

    Bulowski, A

    W. Bulowski, A. Szwanda, K. Gawlińska Nęcek, P. Panek, M. Lipiński, M. Janusz-Skuza, M. Szczerba, L. Majchrowicz, A. Mahapatra, D. Prochowicz and Z. Starowicz,Journal of Materials Science, 2024,59, 1–16

    2024

  93. [101]

    Chauhan and R

    S. Chauhan and R. Singh,Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023, xx–yy

    2023

  94. [102]

    A. A. Rozhko, V. V. Petrov and A. V. Sayenko,IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2021,1035, 012032

    2021

  95. [103]

    F. E. Ikuemonisan, Y. O. Kayode and O. B. Odubote,Next Materials, 2025,8, 100870

    2025

  96. [104]

    R. R. Lekshmy, E. Raza, Z. Ahmad and J. Bhadra,Results in Optics, 2025,21, 100823

    2025

  97. [105]

    Zeghdar, S

    K. Zeghdar, S. Mansouri, L. Dehimi, F. Pezzimenti, M. Abdellattif, A. Alhuthali, C. Rao- rane, B. Ruthramurthy and M. K. Hossain,Scientific Reports, 2025,15, 25294

    2025

  98. [106]

    C. M. Stanley,physica status solidi (a), 2022,219, 2200175

    2022

  99. [107]

    G. G. Njema, J. K. Kibet and S. M. Ngari,Measurement: Energy, 2024,2, 100005

    2024

  100. [108]

    Y. Lu, F. Alam, J. Shamsi and M. Abdi-Jalebi,The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2024,128, 10084–10107

    2024

  101. [109]

    Nowak, T

    D. Nowak, T. Taskesen, D. Pareek, T. Pfeiffelmann, U. Mikolajczak and L. Gütay,Solar RRL, 2021,5, 2100237

    2021

  102. [110]

    Boretti,Next Sustainability, 2025,6, 100185

    A. Boretti,Next Sustainability, 2025,6, 100185

    2025

  103. [111]

    Banik, A

    S. Banik, A. Das, B. Das and N. Islam,Heliyon, 2024,10, e23985

    2024

  104. [112]

    W. Zhou, Y. Fang, C. Zhang, M. Xie, T. Geng, R. Liao, X. Song, W. Kang, A. Zhang, T. Wu and H. Yu,Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2026,296, 114079. 36

    2026

  105. [113]

    Ghosh, A

    A. Ghosh, A. Al Hossain Newaz, A. A. Baki, N. S. Awwad, H. A. Ibrahium, M. S. Hossain, M. M. Rahman Sonic, M. S. Islam and M. K. Rahman,RSC Adv., 2024,14, 24066–24081

    2024

  106. [114]

    E. N. Vincent Mercy, D. Srinivasan and L. Marasamy,ACS Omega, 2024,9, 4359–4376

    2024

  107. [115]

    T. I. Alanazi, A. Shaker and D. Selim,Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 2025,1010, 177354

    2025

  108. [116]

    El Badraoui, T

    A. El Badraoui, T. Chargui, A. Elkhou, B. El Mokhtari, R. El Idrissi, L. El Amri, H. Ez- Zahraouy and N. Tahiri,Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, 2026,210, 113340

    2026

  109. [117]

    R. O. Jones,Reviews of modern physics, 2015,87, 897–923

    2015

  110. [118]

    Saidarsan, S

    A. Saidarsan, S. Guruprasad, A. Malik, P. Basumatary and D. S. Ghosh,Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2025,279, 113230

    2025

  111. [119]

    Verschraegen and M

    J. Verschraegen and M. Burgelman,Thin Solid Films, 2007,515, 6276–6279

    2007

  112. [120]

    Burgelman, P

    M. Burgelman, P. Nollet and S. Degrave,Thin Solid Films, 2000,361-362, 527–532

    2000

  113. [121]

    Y. M. Alawaideh, B. M. Al-khamiseh, S. Alawaideh, A. M. Al-Zuheir, W. Alahamad, I.-L. Popa and N. A. Shah,Materials Today Communications, 2026,50, 114651

    2026

  114. [122]

    Y. M. Alawaideh, B. Abu-Izneid, B. M. Al-khamiseh, A. A. Mousa and W. Alahamad, Next Materials, 2025,9, 101286

    2025

  115. [123]

    Y. M. Alawaideh, B. M. Al-khamiseh, S. Alawaideh, A. A. Mousa and D. Khater,Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, 2026,208, 113179

    2026

  116. [124]

    Azzouz-Rached, M

    A. Azzouz-Rached, M. N. Amin, H. Merkoune, I. Ouadha, A. Shtaiwi, A. M. Al-Zuheiri, Y. M. Alawaideh, A. Chowdhury and A. K. Chowdhury,Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2026,109, e70502

    2026

  117. [125]

    Madkhali, M

    N. Madkhali, M. Mushtaq, T. Altoub, N. Algethami, A. Laref, A. Shtaiwi, H. A. Qattous and Y. M. Alawaideh,RSC Adv., 2025,15, 36473–36484

    2025

  118. [126]

    J. Luo, S. Li, H. Wu, Y. Zhou, Y. Li, J. Liu, J. Li, K. Li, F. Yi, G. Niu and J. Tang,ACS Photonics, 2018,5, 398–405

    2018

  119. [127]

    Lei, Z.-F

    L.-Z. Lei, Z.-F. Shi, Y. Li, Z.-Z. Ma, F. Zhang, T.-T. Xu, Y.-T. Tian, D. Wu, X.-J. Li and G.-T. Du,J. Mater. Chem. C, 2018,6, 7982–7988

    2018

  120. [128]

    Z.-K. Tan, R. Saberi Moghaddam, M. Lai, P. Docampo, R. Higler, F. Deschler, M. Price, A. Sadhanala, L. Pazos, D. Credgington, F. Hanusch, T. Bein, H. Snaith and R. Friend, Nature nanotechnology, 2014,9, 687–692

    2014

  121. [129]

    Jiajun, X

    L. Jiajun, X. Wang, S. Li, J. Liu, Y. Guo, G. Niu, L. Yao, F. Yuhao, L. Gao, Q. Dong, C. Zhao, M. Leng, F. Ma, W. Liang, L. Wang, S. Jin, J. Han, L. Zhang, J. Etheridge and J. Tang,Nature, 2018,563, 541

    2018

  122. [130]

    Z. Li, Q. Wei, Y. Wang, C. Tao, Y. Zou, X. Liu, Z. Li, Z. Wu, M. Li, W. Guo, G. Li, W. Xu and F. Gao,Nature Communications, 2025,16, 927. 37

    2025

  123. [131]

    Wagner and G

    F. Wagner and G. Somorjai,Nature, 1980,285, 559–560

    1980

  124. [132]

    H. Kato, K. Asakura and A. Kudo,Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2003,125, 3082–3089

    2003

  125. [133]

    Kong, J.-F

    Z.-C. Kong, J.-F. Liao, Y.-J. Dong, Y.-F. Xu, H.-Y. Chen, D.-B. Kuang and C.-Y. Su, ACS Energy Letters, 2018,3, 2656–2662

    2018

  126. [134]

    A. Fehr, A. Agrawal, F. Mandani, C. Conrad, Q. Jiang, S. Park, O. Alley, B. Li, S. Sidhik, I. Metcalf, C. Botello, J. Young, J. Even, J. Blancon, T. Deutsch, K. Zhu, S. Albrecht, F. Toma, M. Wong and A. Mohite,Nature Communications, 2023,14, 3797

    2023

  127. [135]

    Pisoni, J

    A. Pisoni, J. Jaćimović, O. S. Barišić, M. Spina, R. Gaál, L. Forró and E. Horváth,The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2014,5, 2488–2492

    2014

  128. [136]

    M. A. Haque, S. Kee, D. R. Villalva, W.-L. Ong and D. Baran,Advanced Science, 2020, 7, 1903389

    2020

  129. [137]

    X. Wu, G. Xiao, Q. Song, C. Ming, D. Ren, S. Bai, L. Chen and Y.-Y. Sun,Science China Materials, 2026,69, 4195–4202

    2026

  130. [138]

    Samorì, M

    C.Asker, C.Pipitone, F.Ursi, K.Chen, A.G.Ricciardulli, E.S.SuenaGalindez, S.Luong, P. Samorì, M. Reece, A. Martorana, F. Giannici and O. Fenwick,Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2025,13, 26009–26018

    2025

  131. [139]

    Yurong, A

    W. Yurong, A. Dixit, J. Abraham, P. Kumari, M. Alanazi, T. Saidani and R. Sharma, Gold Bulletin, 2025,58, 16

    2025

  132. [140]

    C. C. Stoumpos, C. D. Malliakas, J. A. Peters, Z. Liu, M. Sebastian, J. Im, T. C. Chasapis, A. C. Wibowo, D. Y. Chung, A. J. Freeman, B. W. Wessels and M. G. Kanatzidis,Crystal Growth & Design, 2013,13, 2722–2727

    2013

  133. [141]

    W. Wei, Y. Zhang, Q. Xu, H. Wei, Y. Fang, Q. Wang, Y. Deng, T. Li, A. Gruverman, L. Cao and J. Huang,Nature Photonics, 2017,11, 315–321

    2017

  134. [142]

    H. Tsai, F. Liu, S. Shrestha, K. Fernando, S. Tretiak, B. Scott, D. T. Vo, J. Strzalka and W. Nie,Science Advances, 2020,6, eaay0815

    2020

  135. [143]

    S. Jin, S. Zhu, L. Wei, M. Zhang, Y. Chen, T. Pang, L. Zeng and D. Chen,Laser & Photonics Reviews, 2026,20, e02436

    2026

  136. [144]

    Waqar, H

    M. Waqar, H. Wu, J. Chen, K. Yao and J. Wang,Advanced Materials, 2022,34, 2106845

    2022

  137. [145]

    Jaffe, R

    B. Jaffe, R. S. Roth and S. Marzullo,Journal of Applied Physics, 1954,25, 809–810

    1954

  138. [146]

    Zheng, J

    T. Zheng, J. Wu, D. Xiao and J. Zhu,Progress in Materials Science, 2018,98, 552–624

    2018

  139. [147]

    Venkatesan, W.-C

    M. Venkatesan, W.-C. Lin, W.-C. Chen, J. Chandrasekar, Y.-H. Huang, K.-W. Lin, Z.-S. Syu, J.-H. Lin, W.-H. Chiang, W.-R. Liu, Y. Zhou and C.-C. Kuo,Chemical Engineering Journal, 2025,505, 159541

    2025

  140. [148]

    A. J. Ong, Y. Li, S. Das, M. Lighthouse, A. I. Y. Tok, P. S. Lee, X. Chen and L. Etgar, ACS Applied Electronic Materials, 2026,8, 2996–3006. 38

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.