Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2025 Feb 26;16(9):2385–2392. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.4c03705

Amorphous Silica Interlayer Unlocks Direct Epitaxial Growth of CsPbBr3 on Silicon via Slip-and-Stick Mechanism

Christian Tantardini †,‡,*, Simone Argiolas †,, Paola De Padova §, Boris I Yakobson ‡, Aldo Di Carlo §, Alessandro Mattoni †,*
PMCID: PMC11891965  PMID: 40009355

Abstract

graphic file with name jz4c03705_0006.jpg

In this study, we investigate the “Slip and Stick” mechanism governing the epitaxial growth of CsPbBr3 on amorphous silica surfaces and its implications for silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell applications. The unique, low-energy diffusion behavior of cesium lead bromide on amorphous silica enables molecular species to traverse the surface efficiently without bond-breaking, thereby preserving structural integrity. Consequently, the chemically inert nature of amorphous silica facilitates the formation of crystalline CsPbBr3 thin films on silicon substrates, which is essential for tandem solar cell architectures. In contrast, the reactive silicon (111) surface, that induces fragment decomposition and Br doping of Si, poses challenges to device stability due to potential disruptions in structural and electronic continuity. Our findings elucidate the observed difficulties in epitaxially growing metal halide perovskites directly on silicon surfaces and underscore the role of amorphous silica as an ideal passivation layer, promoting the precise layer-by-layer assembly necessary for high-efficiency tandem solar cells.

Lead (Pb) is crucial for endowing perovskite materials with exceptional optoelectronic properties, including direct and tunable band gaps, strong spin–orbit coupling, high absorption coefficients, and efficient light emission.1,2 Additionally, lead-based perovskites exhibit remarkable defect tolerance and long charge carrier diffusion lengths, resulting in prolonged carrier lifetimes. These characteristics make lead halide perovskites prime candidates for high-performance optoelectronic devices such as solar cells and light-emitting diodes.3−8 Among these materials, the hybrid organic–inorganic methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI3) stands out in photovoltaics for its high solar energy conversion efficiency.9−13 However, there is growing interest in all-inorganic perovskites due to their superior stability under high humidity, elevated temperatures, intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and mechanical stress,14−23 which helps prevent the moisture-induced decomposition and reduced efficiency often seen in hybrid perovskites like MAPbI3.15

In particular, all-inorganic perovskites such as cesium lead bromide (CsPbBr3) avoid volatile organic components, resulting in enhanced moisture resistance and preserved structural integrity at high temperatures.14,16,17 They also demonstrate resilience to UV-induced degradation,18,19 mechanical robustness for flexible electronics and wearables,20,21 and sustained efficiency over extended periods, which is vital for large-scale solar and optoelectronic applications.22,23

These stability advantages make all-inorganic perovskites promising candidates for next-generation optoelectronic applications, addressing the limitations of hybrid perovskites and enabling more durable and efficient devices.5,14

For example, CsPbBr3 possesses a direct band gap of 2.3 eV and have demonstrated ultrahigh electron mobility of 1000 cm2V s–1 and an electron lifetime of 2.5 μs making it promising for photovoltaic and especially for tandem solar cells. Indeed, the combination of perovskite and silicon can markedly enhance the efficiency of silicon-only devices, reducing energy losses and optimizing energy conversion.24−26

Tandem solar cell architectures require precise control of perovskite growth on silicon substrates, as the interface quality critically affects multijunction efficiency.27 Among the various perovskites, CsPbBr3 stands out for its excellent optoelectronic properties, thermal stability, and suitable band gap for tandem cells,28,29 enabling reduced thermalization losses and the potential to surpass single-junction efficiency limits.30

Achieving a high-quality CsPbBr3–silicon interface is key to minimizing recombination losses and boosting charge carrier extraction.31 Recent progress in deposition methods, such as vapor-assisted solution processing and thermal evaporation, demonstrates successful CsPbBr3 integration on silicon,32,33 while the material’s ambient stability addresses a major challenge of hybrid perovskites, making it appealing for commercial applications.29 Further investigation into interface engineering and growth mechanisms is essential for optimizing tandem performance, enhancing efficiency, and extending device lifetimes, bringing highly efficient and stable multijunction solar cells closer to realization.28,31

Molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) has emerged as an effective method for achieving atomic-level control over perovskite film growth, enabling the production of thin films with precise stoichiometry, thickness, and crystallinity.34−45 This technique is especially well-suited for refining the growth conditions of perovskites on silicon and related substrates, such as amorphous silica (SiO2) and crystalline alpha-quartz (α-SiO2), which are favored for their compatibility with existing semiconductor technologies and advantageous electronic properties.34−45 A thorough control of perovskite growth on these silicon-based substrates could -therefore advance the high-performance of tandem solar cells by improving film quality and interface characteristics.24−26 Nevertheless, the epitaxial growth of perovskite on silicon presents a significant challenge. It is noteworthy that recent studies have shown that MBE of CsPbBr3 on silicon is possible with the use of a thin amorphous silicon dioxide interlayer.45 The underlying microscopic cause of these observations remains unclear and is the object of the present Letter.

The growth mechanisms of perovskite films are highly complex, varying significantly with substrate properties.34−45 Research has highlighted two principal growth mechanisms for perovskites: the “slip” mechanism, where perovskite layers laterally slide across smooth surfaces for even film coverage, and the “sticking” mechanism, where the material adheres to the substrate, accumulating in areas with surface roughness.45−48

Recently, a combined “slip-and-sticking” mechanism has been proposed, integrating both lateral sliding and substrate adhesion to enhance film uniformity and crystallinity.49−52 In this combined mechanism, the initial sticking facilitates nucleation and anchoring of perovskite crystals on the substrate, particularly in regions with inherent surface irregularities. Subsequently, the slip component allows the perovskite layers to spread laterally across the substrate, promoting even coverage and reducing defects. This synergistic interplay ensures that the film achieves high uniformity while maintaining strong adhesion to the substrate, which is crucial for the performance and stability of perovskite-based devices.49−52 Studies have demonstrated that optimizing the balance between slipping and sticking can lead to improved morphological properties and enhanced device efficiencies, highlighting the importance of controlling both mechanisms during the film deposition process.49−52

Confirming these mechanisms experimentally is challenging due to the atomic-scale complexity involved.

Atomistic modeling, including ab initio and classical molecular dynamics53−55 are essential for elucidating growth processes.56 Classical methods allow large-scale simulations57−59 but require appropriate training/fitting of the model parameters to the material of interest and there are no models available for Si-CsPbBr3 systems to date. Ab initio methods are computationally expensive but predictive for all chemical species and provide atomic-level insight into interfacial interactions such as binding energies and charge transfer, enabling an understanding of growth stability and preferred nucleation sites.56

In this study, we employ ab initio approach to explore CsPbBr3 growth on silicon-based substrates (pure silicon, amorphous silica, and α-quartz). Surprisingly, we find that when the perovskite molecules are put in contact with the 111-silicon surface they breakup into fragments with the formation of Si–Br bonds that sticks on the surface. In contrast, the perovskite unit remains intact on crystalline silicon dioxide, thereby supporting the existence of the “slipping and sticking” mechanisms when the molecules are deposited on amorphous silicon dioxide. By verifying these growth behaviors, we provide key insights into optimizing growth conditions for perovskite-based tandem solar cells, advancing efforts toward highly efficient, silicon-compatible photovoltaic devices.24−26

The silicon (111) 7 × 7 surface is a well-characterized reconstruction in semiconductor physics, renowned for its unique atomic arrangement and stability. This structure emerges from the reorganization of silicon atoms at the surface, forming a 7 × 7 unit cell composed of faulted and unfaulted halves, as well as adatom and rest-atom sites. These features collectively enhance the surface’s stability and electronic properties, making it an ideal substrate for the epitaxial growth of metal halide perovskites.60 During epitaxial growth, thin crystalline layers form on the silicon substrate with minimal defects. The periodicity and stability of the 7 × 7 reconstruction help reduce lattice mismatches and dislocations during layer growth, supporting the formation of high-quality crystalline films.61 This is particularly valuable in photovoltaic applications, where growth on the silicon (111) 7 × 7 surface minimizes interfacial defects and promotes efficient electron transport across heterojunctions.

However, directly modeling the full 7 × 7 unit cell using density functional theory (DFT) is computationally demanding due to the exponential increase in the number of atoms and the resulting number of electrons treated simultaneously, the associated scaling of computational resources, and the complexities involved in accurately capturing electronic interactions. To overcome this challenge, we employed a simplified 2 × 2 four-layer model that effectively captures the essential structural and electronic characteristics of the 7 × 7 surface while significantly reducing computational costs. We plotted ΔE versus the number of layers, where ΔE = E(i+1) – E(i), and both energy values were scaled by the total number of atoms. This approach enabled the calculation of the energy increase when transitioning from layer i to layer i+1. A cutoff energy of ΔE = 10–3 Ry was used. Calculations demonstrated that this four-layer atomic model accurately reflects the properties of the 7 × 7 reconstruction, including its lattice parameters and compatibility with materials like CsPbBr3.62 By using this streamlined model, we can efficiently simulate and analyze the surface interactions and initial steps of growth processes.63

We examined the adsorption behavior of three molecular units: CsBr, PbBr2, and CsPbBr3 commonly introduced as molecular beams in ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) environments. Selected for their relevance to perovskite formation, CsPbBr3 is the smallest stoichiometric unit in perovskite film growth. By simulating the adsorption of a first molecular unit (labeled “1” in Table 1) and subsequently a second molecular unit (labeled “2” in Table 1) onto the model Si(111) surface, and by calculating the corresponding binding energies, we gained insights into each molecule’s stability and affinity for the silicon substrate.

Table 1. Absorption Energies of the First and Second Units of CsBr, PbBr2, and CsPbBr3 on Silicon(111).

unit Δ(CsBr)/eV Δ(PbBr2)/eV Δ(CsPbBr3)/eV
1 1.802 2.547 2.262
2 1.816 2.536 2.606
Open in a new tab

All molecular units dissociated, forming chemical bonds between the fragments and the substrate, as evidenced by the absorption energies shown in Table 1.

The silicon (111) surface, with its unique atomic and electronic structure, exhibits a strong affinity for bromide ions from the molecular units. Consequently, the CsPbBr3 unit dissociates upon adsorption, promoting bromide migration to the silicon surface and leading to the formation of a bromide-modified layer. This surface functionalization alters the local potential, which may adversely affect subsequent adsorption and epitaxial growth processes.

Introducing a second molecular unit—CsBr, PbBr2, or CsPbBr3—to the silicon surface revealed a consistent binding energy profile (see Table 1), indicating stable adsorption across all species. However, the dissociation of these molecular units presents challenges for epitaxial film formation, as it can disrupt the orderly layering necessary for high-quality perovskite films.

The extensive bromide coverage resulting from this dissociation suggests that while the silicon (111) surface is chemically active, the formation of a bromide-modified layer may hinder the epitaxial growth of perovskite films by altering surface properties unfavorably. A clean Si(111) surface (especially if not fully passivated or hydrogen-terminated) possesses dangling bonds—unpaired electrons on surface Si atoms. These dangling bonds are highly reactive sites. In contrast to bare Si, an SiO2 surface is characterized by saturated silicon–oxygen bonds. Most of the oxygen atoms on silica surfaces are already 2-fold-coordinated to silicon, leaving fewer reactive sites or “dangling” bonds. Further investigation is required to determine whether bromide coverage can be controlled or mitigated to support effective film deposition.

To further understand the adsorption dynamics and reaction pathways, we performed Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) calculations on the first adsorbed unit of each molecule (CsPbBr3, CsBr, and PbBr2) on the silicon surface. The NEB results for CsPbBr3, shown in Figure 1, reveal an effectively barrierless path for the initial adsorption step with breaking of molecule and direct formation of new Si–Br or Si–Pb bonds. The same behavior was observed for both CsBr and PbBr2 (see Supporting Information Figures S1 and S2), indicating that these molecules similarly follow a direct, momentum-driven (ballistic) adsorption process on the silicon surface. NEB allowed us to map the minimum energy path (MEP), revealing transition states and adsorption energy barriers.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Nudged elastic band (NEB) calculations for CsPbBr3 on Si(111). The left inset shows the initial CsPbBr3 structure placed far enough from the surface to avoid interaction. The middle inset illustrates the breaking of one Pb–Br bond, with the detached Br atom bonding to the Si surface. The right inset depicts the breaking of a second Pb–Br bond, followed by the attachment of another Br atom to the Si surface.

The results confirm a ballistic reaction path characterized by a continuous decrease in energy as each molecule transitions between stationary points. This direct adsorption process involves the dissociation of the molecule upon surface contact, with bromine atoms bonding to and functionalizing the silicon surface. The ballistic pathway is effectively barrier-free and driven by the initial momentum of the molecule.

Unlike the “slip and stick” mechanism typically associated with epitaxial growth, the initial adsorption process of CsPbBr3 on silicon does not follow this pattern when using pure silicon surfaces. Pure silicon lacks the necessary surface functional groups to facilitate orderly layer formation, leading to irregular or nonuniform deposition. Epitaxial growth only commences once the silicon surface is fully functionalized with bromine atoms. This bromine functionalization creates specific binding sites that promote the orderly adsorption of CsPbBr3 molecules, potentially starting effectively with the adsorption of the second molecule onward. While this functionalization step is crucial for enabling CsPbBr3 deposition, it may simultaneously restrict the formation of highly ordered layers, which are essential for achieving optimal performance in tandem solar cells. Additionally, ab initio computational methods, which rely on first-principles calculations of atomic interactions, often struggle to capture large-scale layer formation due to inherent system-size and time scale constraints. However, these limitations do not significantly affect this study because it focuses on local atomic-level mechanisms of adsorption, which can be accurately probed using smaller, representative surface models. By examining these essential interactions, the work still provides a robust understanding of the functionalized epitaxial growth on bromine-functionalized silicon surfaces.

Inspired by very recent experimental results45 we examined interactions between molecular species and amorphous silica.

To mimic realistic conditions we considered surfaces passivated by hydroxyl groups with varying densities (i.e., 15, 24, 45, 54, and 74 OH per unit area) to capture realistic surface variations.

In amorphous silica, adsorption differs notably from silicon (111): neither the first nor the second molecular units dissociated upon adsorption, indicating a weaker interaction; see absorption energies in Table 2. Molecular species retained an average distance of approximately 3.5 Å from surface oxygen atoms, suggesting the absence of a strong covalent bonding.

Table 2. Absorption Energies of First Unit (1) and Second Unit (2) of CsBr, PbBr2, and CsPbBr3 on Different Surfaces of Amorphous Silica: 15OH, 24OH, 45OH, 54OH, and 74OH.

  Δ/eV
  CsBr(1) PbBr2(1) CsPbBr3(1) CsBr(2) PbBr2(2) CsPbBr3(2)
15OH 0.567 0.477 0.152 1.476 0.784 0.978
24OH 0.841 0.508 0.158 0.895 0.432 1.160
45OH 0.614 0.264 0.353 1.164 0.766 0.756
54OH 0.351 0.478 0.495 0.809 0.716 0.749
74OH 0.639 0.349 0.311 1.259 0.521 0.502
Open in a new tab

Here, we also performed NEB calculations on the first unit of CsPbBr3 adsorbed on different amorphous silica surfaces. Our results revealed a diffusive pathway, whose energy profiles are shown in Figure 2 with corresponding atomistic structures depicted in Figure 3. The variations in the energy barriers reflects the disorder of the amorphous layer and depends on the local atomistic morphology and surface roughness.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Nudged elastic band (NEB) calculations for CsPbBr3 on amorphous silica.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Amorphous silica substrates with CsPbBr3.

The calculations indicate that the CsPbBr3 unit is capable of diffusing on the amorphous silica surface while maintaining its structural integrity. The calculated energy barriers are small (values are in the range 0–0.4 eV) indicating high diffusivity at room temperature. By assuming a prefactor ν of 1012 Hz and displacement length λ of 6 Å, we can estimate diffusivity D ≈ νλ2e–E/kT ranging within 10–9–10–5 cm2 s–1. These findings are consistent with the “slip and stick” mechanism previously proposed by De Padova et al.45

To determine whether the absorption results are influenced by the amorphous morphology or the chemical nature of the silicon dioxide substrate, we also examined absorption on the crystalline [001] surface of α-quartz. Table 3 presents the absorption energies for the first and second units of CsBr, PbBr2, and CsPbBr3 on this crystalline surface. The absorption energies are comparable to those observed for the amorphous substrate, indicating similar binding mechanisms and energy profiles. Additionally, the bond distances between the substrate and the molecular species are close to those in the amorphous case, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Absorption Energies of the First and Second Units of CsBr, PbBr2, and CsPbBr3 on the [001] Surface of α-Quartz.

unit Δ(CsBr)/eV Δ(PbBr2)/eV Δ(CsPbBr3)/eV
1 0.259 0.294 0.069
2 0.693 0.304 0.331
Open in a new tab

Furthermore, NEB calculations for CsPbBr3 on the [001] α-quartz surface identify a minimum-energy path between adjacent adsorption sites with an exceptionally low barrier of about 0.02 eV (Figure 4). This small barrier without the breaking of molecule and formation of new Si–Br or Si–Pb bonds indicates that CsPbBr3 diffuses easily under typical conditions, supporting the conclusion that its surface motion is predominantly governed by a diffusive mechanism. This observation supports the ”slip and stick” mechanism,45 highlighting the significant dependence of the energy barrier on surface roughness. The contrast between silica and silicon substrates also indicates variability in adsorption behavior based on surface composition and morphology. Specifically, amorphous silica exhibits more passive interactions compared to the reactive silicon (111) surface. These findings suggest that molecular beam adsorption mechanisms are substrate-dependent, a critical factor for understanding and optimizing growth processes in semiconductor applications.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Nudged elastic band (NEB) calculations for CsPbBr3 on the [001] surface of α-quartz. The left inset shows the initial local minimum on the surface where CsPbBr3 structure is placed. The middle inset illustrates that no bonds in the molecular structure are broken as it moves across the surface at the peak of the energy barrier. The right inset shows the same structure displaced to a different local minimum (i.e., site) relative to its initial position.

The results presented here can be summarized by scheme showed in Figure 5. They support the occurrence of CsPbBr3 epitaxial growth on amorphous silica via a “slip and stick” mechanism. In this process, precursors bind to the surface without breaking up and easily diffuse on the surface, which allows for crystal growth. Unlike the highly reactive silicon (111) surface, which induces molecular dissociation upon adsorption, amorphous silica preserves the integrity of adsorbed species, preventing bond-breaking events. The chemically inert nature of amorphous silica supports surface saturation through low-barrier diffusion and enables the formation of uniform thin films, which is essential for seamlessly integrating multiple photoactive layers in tandem solar cells. Its reduced reactivity minimizes unwanted chemical interactions, providing a stable, noninterfering interfacial layer that enhances both durability and efficiency in tandem devices. In contrast, the pronounced reactivity of the silicon (111) surface can disrupt the structural and electronic continuity of stacked layers, challenging device stability.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Scheme of epitaxial growth on SiO2 and silicon.

Thus, the “slip and stick” mechanism on amorphous silica underscores its suitability as an ideal passivation layer, supporting the precise, layer-by-layer assembly needed to achieve high-efficiency tandem solar cells.

Acknowledgments

A.M., S.A., and Ch.T. acknowledge ICSC-Centro Nazionale di Ricerca in High Performance Computing, Big Data and Quantum Computing, funded by European Union-Next Generation EU-PNRR, Missione 4 Componente 2 Investimento 1.4 (B93C22000620006), and Project MUR-PRIN 2022 NEWATOMISTS (B53D23004630006) and Project MUR-PRIN 2022 PNRR ORIENTING (B53D23025530001) and Project MUR-PRIN 2022 IMPACT (B53D23015220006) funded by European Union-Next Generation EU -PNRR, Missione 4 Componente 2 Investimento 1.1. Work at Rice (Ch.T. and B.I.Y., energy efficiency aspects) was supported by the US Department of Energy grant DE- 2801 SC0012547.

Supporting Information Available

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.4c03705.

  • Computational details and pictures of NEB for CsBr and PbBr2 on Si(111) (PDF)

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Supplementary Material

jz4c03705_si_001.pdf (211.8KB, pdf)

References

  1. Snaith H. J. Perovskites: The Emergence of a New Era for Low-Cost, High-Efficiency Solar Cells. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 3623–3630. 10.1021/jz4020162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Green M. A.; Ho-Baillie A.; Snaith H. J. The Emergence of Perovskite Solar Cells. Nat. Photonics 2014, 8, 506–514. 10.1038/nphoton.2014.134. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. He X.; Qiu Y.; Yang S. Fully-inorganic trihalide perovskite nanocrystals: A new research frontier of optoelectronic materials. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1700775. 10.1002/adma.201700775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Manser J. S.; Christians J. A.; Kamat P. V. Intriguing optoelectronic properties of metal halide perovskites. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116, 12956–13008. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Li J.; Duan J.; Yang X.; Duan Y.; Yang P.; Tang Q. Review on recent progress of lead-free halide perovskites in optoelectronic applications. Nano Energy 2021, 80, 105526. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2020.105526. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Li B.; Tian F.; Cui X.; Xiang B.; Zhao H.; Zhang H.; Wang D.; Li J.; Wang X.; Fang X.; et al. others Review for rare-earth-modified perovskite materials and optoelectronic applications. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1773. 10.3390/nano12101773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Aftab S.; Kabir F.; Mukhtar M.; Hussain I.; Nazir G.; Aslam M.; Hegazy H.; Yewale M. A. Perovskite quantum wires: A review of their exceptional optoelectronic properties and diverse applications in revolutionary technologies. Nano Energy 2024, 129, 109995. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2024.109995. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fu Y.; Zhu H.; Chen J.; Hautzinger M. P.; Zhu X.-Y.; Jin S. Metal halide perovskite nanostructures for optoelectronic applications and the study of physical properties. Nature Reviews Materials 2019, 4, 169–188. 10.1038/s41578-019-0080-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chetan A. others Breakthroughs in Perovskite Solar Cells: Advancing Efficiency and Stability for Next-Generation Photovoltaics. Journal for Research in Applied Sciences and Biotechnology 2022, 1, 278–285. 10.55544/jrasb.1.3.37. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nandi P.; Shin S.; Park H.; In Y.; Amornkitbamrung U.; Jeong H. J.; Kwon S. J.; Shin H. Large and Small Polarons in Highly Efficient and Stable Organic-Inorganic Lead Halide Perovskite Solar Cells: A Review. Solar RRL 2024, 8, 2400364. 10.1002/solr.202400364. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Aryal S.; Mather T.; Kaul A. B.. Perovskite Solar Cell Degradation Driven by Collector Electrode and Prototypical Demonstration for Low-Power Electronics; IEEE MetroCon: 2023; pp 1–33, 10.1109/MetroCon59008.2023.10340521. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Yadav C.; Kumar S. Numerical simulation of lead-free MASnI3 perovskite/silicon heterojunction for solar cells and photodetectors. Results in Surfaces and Interfaces 2024, 17, 100301. 10.1016/j.rsurfi.2024.100301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tantardini C.; Kokott S.; Gonze X.; Levchenko S. V.; Saidi W. A. Self-trapping” in solar cell hybrid inorganic-organic perovskite absorbers. Applied Materials Today 2022, 26, 101380. 10.1016/j.apmt.2022.101380. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ullah M. All-Inorganic Perovskites: Stability and Applications. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2104567. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhang H. Enhancing Moisture Resistance in Perovskite Solar Cells. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2020, 8, 2345–2356. [Google Scholar]
  16. Liu Y. Thermal Stability of All-Inorganic Perovskites. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 789–798. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wang J. Stability Enhancements in All-Inorganic Perovskite Solar Cells. Solar RRL 2021, 5, 2100296. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen F. UV Stability of Inorganic Perovskites for Photovoltaic Applications. J. Photochem. Photobiol., A 2020, 400, 112574. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu X. Enhanced UV Resistance in Cesium-Based Perovskites. Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing 2022, 132, 105145. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gao Y. Mechanical Robustness of All-Inorganic Perovskites for Flexible Electronics. Flexible and Printed Electronics 2021, 6, 034001. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ren H. Flexible Perovskite-Based Devices: Challenges and Opportunities. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2023, 33, 2204567. [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller D. Long-Term Stability of All-Inorganic Perovskite Solar Cells. Energy Storage Materials 2020, 28, 345–352. [Google Scholar]
  23. Park S. Stability Studies of All-Inorganic Perovskites under Operational Conditions. Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2022, 10, 5001–5010. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ameri T.; Dennler G.; Lungenschmied C.; Brabec C. J. Organic tandem solar cells: A review. Energy Environ. Sci. 2009, 2, 347–363. 10.1039/b817952b. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Wali Q.; Elumalai N. K.; Iqbal Y.; Uddin A.; Jose R. Tandem perovskite solar cells. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 84, 89–110. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.01.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Yamaguchi M.; Lee K.-H.; Araki K.; Kojima N. A review of recent progress in heterogeneous silicon tandem solar cells. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2018, 51, 133002. 10.1088/1361-6463/aaaf08. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Green M. A.; et al. Solar cell efficiency tables (version 55). Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 2020, 28, 3–15. 10.1002/pip.3228. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Protesescu L.; et al. Cesium-containing triple cation perovskite solar cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 9781–9787. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lin Q.; et al. Cesium-containing perovskite solar cells: Enhancing stability and performance. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2019, 7, 9143–9155. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kojima A.; et al. Organometal halide perovskites as visible-light sensitizers for photovoltaic cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 6050–6051. 10.1021/ja809598r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang Y.; et al. Efficient charge extraction in perovskite solar cells with optimized interfaces. Nature Energy 2016, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Park B. W.; et al. Solution-processed layered perovskite photovoltaics. Nature 2016, 534, 347–350.27281200 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee M. M.; et al. Efficient hybrid solar cells based on meso-superstructured organometal halide perovskites. Science 2015, 345, 542–546. 10.1126/science.1228604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Yu Z.; Ramdani J.; Curless J.; Finder J.; Overgaard C.; Droopad R.; Eisenbeiser K.; Hallmark J.; Ooms W.; Conner J.; et al. Epitaxial perovskite thin films grown on silicon by molecular beam epitaxy. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, and Phenomena 2000, 18, 1653–1657. 10.1116/1.591445. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Provence S. R.; Thapa S.; Paudel R.; Truttmann T. K.; Prakash A.; Jalan B.; Comes R. B. Machine learning analysis of perovskite oxides grown by molecular beam epitaxy. Physical Review Materials 2020, 4, 083807. 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.4.083807. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Li F.; Davidson B. A.; Sutarto R.; Shin H.; Liu C.; Elfimov I.; Foyevtsova K.; He F.; Sawatzky G. A.; Zou K. Epitaxial growth of perovskite SrBiO 3 film on SrTiO 3 by oxide molecular beam epitaxy. Physical Review Materials 2019, 3, 100802. 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.100802. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sadeghi I.; Ye K.; Xu M.; Li Y.; LeBeau J. M.; Jaramillo R. Making BaZrS3 chalcogenide perovskite thin films by molecular beam epitaxy. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2105563. 10.1002/adfm.202105563. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Brahlek M.; Zhang L.; Zhang H.-T.; Lapano J.; Dedon L. R.; Martin L. W.; Engel-Herbert R. Mapping growth windows in quaternary perovskite oxide systems by hybrid molecular beam epitaxy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2016, 109, 101903. 10.1063/1.4962388. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Liang Y.; Kulik J.; Eschrich T.; Droopad R.; Yu Z.; Maniar P. Hetero-epitaxy of perovskite oxides on GaAs (001) by molecular beam epitaxy. Applied physics letters 2004, 85, 1217–1219. 10.1063/1.1783016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sun H.; Zhang C.; Song J.; Gu J.; Zhang T.; Zang Y.; Li Y.; Gu Z.; Wang P.; Nie Y. Epitaxial optimization of atomically smooth Sr3Al2O6 for freestanding perovskite films by molecular beam epitaxy. Thin Solid Films 2020, 697, 137815. 10.1016/j.tsf.2020.137815. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Bai J.; Yang J.; Dong W.; Zhang Y.; Bai W.; Tang X. Structural and magnetic properties of perovskite SrMnO3 thin films grown by molecular beam epitaxy. Thin Solid Films 2017, 644, 57–64. 10.1016/j.tsf.2017.08.052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Yang G.; Lu H.; Chen F.; Zhao T.; Chen Z. Laser molecular beam epitaxy and characterization of perovskite oxide thin films. Journal of crystal growth 2001, 227, 929–935. 10.1016/S0022-0248(01)00930-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kwo J. Growth and properties of high Tc films in Y1Ba2Cu3O7- x perovskite by molecular beam epitaxy. Journal of crystal growth 1991, 111, 965–972. 10.1016/0022-0248(91)91116-R. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rieger J.; Kißlinger T.; Raabgrund A.; Hauner J.; Niesner D.; Schneider M. A.; Fauster T. Epitaxial inorganic metal-halide perovskite films with controlled surface terminations. Physical Review Materials 2023, 7, 035403. 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.7.035403. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. De Padova P.; Ottaviani C.; Olivieri B.; Ivanov Y. P.; Divitini G.; Di Carlo A. The role of SiO2 buffer layer in the molecular beam epitaxy growth of CsPbBr3 perovskite on Si (111). Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 23618. 10.1038/s41598-024-67889-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Vook R. Structure and growth of thin films. International Metals Reviews 1982, 27, 209–245. 10.1179/imr.1982.27.1.209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Maity K.; Das N. A class of slipline field solutions for metal machining with slipping and sticking contact at the chip-tool interface. International journal of mechanical sciences 2001, 43, 2435–2452. 10.1016/S0020-7403(01)00013-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Maity K.; Das N. A class of slipline field solutions for metal machining with sticking–slipping zone including elastic contact. Materials & design 2007, 28, 2310–2317. 10.1016/j.matdes.2006.07.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang Y.; Li A.; Wang X.; Chen H. Synergistic Growth Mechanisms in Perovskite Thin Films: Combining Sticking and Slipping for Enhanced Morphology. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2022, 10, 1234–1245. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee S.; Kim J. Integrated Slip-and-Sticking Mechanism for Uniform Perovskite Film Formation. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 5678–5689. [Google Scholar]
  51. Garcia M.; Singh R.; Patel K. Optimizing Perovskite Film Quality through Combined Adhesion and Lateral Movement. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 7890–7901. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chen L.; Huang Y.; Zhao Q. Enhanced Crystallinity in Perovskite Films via Dual Growth Mechanisms. Energy Environ. Sci. 2023, 16, 4567–4578. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mattoni A.; Argiolas S.; Cozzolino G.; Dell’Angelo D.; Filippetti A.; Caddeo C. Many-Body MYP2 Force-Field: Toward the Crystal Growth Modeling of Hybrid Perovskites. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2024, 20, 6781–6789. 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mattoni A.; Colombo L. Crystallization kinetics of mixed amorphous-crystalline nanosystems. Phys. Rev. B 2008, 78, 075408. 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.075408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Fugallo G.; Mattoni A. Thermally induced recrystallization of textured hydrogenated nanocrystalline silicon. Phys. Rev. B 2014, 89, 045301. 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.045301. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Bhatt P.; Pandey A. K.; Rajput A.; Sharma K. K.; Moyez A.; Tewari A. A review on computational modeling of instability and degradation issues of halide perovskite photovoltaic materials. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2023, 13, e1677 10.1002/wcms.1677. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Mattoni A.; Filippetti A.; Caddeo C. Modeling hybrid perovskites by molecular dynamics. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2017, 29, 043001. 10.1088/1361-648X/29/4/043001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Caddeo C.; Filippetti A.; Mattoni A. The dominant role of surfaces in the hysteretic behavior of hybrid perovskites. Nano Energy 2020, 67, 104162. 10.1016/j.nanoen.2019.104162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Mattoni A.; Caddeo C. Dielectric function of hybrid perovskites at finite temperature investigated by classical molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 104705. 10.1063/1.5133064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Zunger A.; et al. Epitaxial Growth of Metal Halide Perovskites on Silicon Substrates. J. Appl. Phys. 2018, 123, 054501. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tersoff J.; Tromp R. M. The Structure of the Clean Si(111) 7 × 7 Surface. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1985, 55, 2703–2706. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kim H.-J.; Spalding M. H. Surface Reconstructions and Their Role in Epitaxial Growth. Adv. Mater. 2010, 22, 4001–4010. [Google Scholar]
  63. Madelung O. Lattice Mismatch and Its Impact on Epitaxial Layer Quality. Semicond. Sci. Technol. 2002, 17, L125–L130. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

jz4c03705_si_001.pdf (211.8KB, pdf)

Articles from The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES