Table 3. Reported Encapsulations and Performance Parameters for PSCs Subjected to Long Term Outdoor Tests (η Denotes Power Conversion Efficiency, η₀ Denotes Initial Efficiency)^a.

encapsulation	device type, architecture	η (%)	test time, T80	final η (%)	ref
butyl rubber edge sealant (Quanex), HelioSeal PVS 101 contact seal	Si/perovskite (inverted) tandem	∼23	6 months, –	∼45% of initial power density	(46)
ThreeBond edge sealant, SiO2 film	PSC, conventional	14.8	432 h, –	∼11	(51)
polyurethane	module, conventional mesoscopic with C	10	3 months, >3 months	97.52% of η0	(48)
UV curable epoxy	PSC, conventional	∼ 5–6	560 h, ∼100 h	0	(58)
UV curable epoxy, glass, waterproof silicone	PSC, conventional mesoscopic with C	∼5–9	30 days, over 30 days	no significant decrease	(59)
blanket PIB, UV curable epoxy edge seal	PSC, inverted	∼20	1728 h, >1728 h	87% of η0	(41)
fluoropolymer coating	PSC, conventional	∼17	2160 h, 2160 h	95% of η0	(47)
EVA	module, inverted	∼6–12	800–2200 h, 80–1442 h	∼55% initial power	(44)
epoxy, Surlyn, cover glass	PSC, conventional mesoscopic with C	12.9	7 days, >168 h	slight increase	(50)
Ossila, Encapsulation Epoxy E131	PSC, conventional	11.02	1008 h, 846 h	60% of η0	(57)
glass, Pattex silicon	module, conventional mesoscopic with C	∼ 8	30 days, >30 days	no significant change	(138)
hydrophobic zirconia film	PSC, conventional mesoscopic with C	∼15–16	150 days, >150 days	no significant degradation	(63)
polyolefin, cover glass	Si/perovskite (inverted) tandem	25.1	1 week, –	–	(64)
two component resin edge encapsulation	PSC, inverted	18.5%	111 days, 35 days T50	–	(136)
PMMA/SB, Al sheet	PSC, conventional	∼19	500 h, 500 h	90% of η0	(76)

^aEmpty spaces in the table indicate that information was not provided, for example, T₈₀ not given, or if the efficiency was given for different device configuration compared to long term stability test.