Supporting Information

Multifunctional Polymer Framework Modified

SnO2 Enabling Photostable α-FAPbI3
Perovskite Solar Cell with Efficiency
Exceeding 23%

Zhenghong Xionga,b, Linkai Lana, Yiyang Wangb,c, Chenxing Lub,c, Shucheng Qinb,c,

Shanshan Chena, Liuyang Zhoub,c, Can Zhub,c , Siguang Lib,c, Lei Mengb,c*, Kuan

Suna*, Yongfang Lib,c

a MOE Key Laboratory of Low-Grade Energy Utilization Technologies and Systems,

Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China

b Beijing National Laboratory for Molecular Sciences, CAS Key Laboratory of

Organic Solids, Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing

100190, China

c School of Chemical Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing

100049, China

S1
Experimental Section

Materials: The SnO2 colloid dispersion was purchased from Alfa Aesar (tin (IV)

oxide, 15 wt% in H2O colloidal dispersion). Poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA)

and 2,2'-Azobis(2-methylpropionitrile) were purchased from Macklin. Acetonitrile

(anhydrous), chlorobenzene (anhydrous), isopropyl alcohol (anhydrous), N, N-

dimethylformamide (DMF), 4-tert-butylpyridine (tBP), and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)

were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. Lead iodide (PbI2), formamidinium iodide (FAI),

2,2 ′ ,7,7 ′ -tetrakis(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamine)-9,9 ′ -spirobifluorene (Spiro-

OMeTAD), lithium Bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide salt (Li-TFSI), and

methylammonium chloride (MACl) were purchased from Xi’an Polymer Light

Technology Inc. Tris (2-(1H -pyrazol-1-yl)-4-tert-butylpyridine)- cobalt (III) Tris (bis

(trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide)) salt (Co (III) TFSI) was purchased from Alorich.

Diethyl ether was purchased from Concord. N-hexylammonium bromide was

purchased from GreatCell Solar Materials.

Device fabrication: Indium doped tin oxide (ITO) glass was cleaned with

sequential sonication in detergent, deionized (DI) water, acetone and 2-propanol for 15

min, respectively. The cleaned substrates were treated with UV- ozone for 30 min

before use. The PEGDA solution was prepared by mixing 270mg PEGDA and 2.7mg

2,2'-Azobis (2-methylpropionitrile), then heated at 80 °C and stirred to dissolve. The

SnO2 colloid dispersion was diluted with DI water as ratio of 1:5. In the case of the

PEGDA-modified solution, different concentrations of PEGDA (0, 0.5%, 1.0%, 2.0%,

and 5.0% in mole ratio with SnO2 colloid dispersion) were added to the above diluted

S2
SnO2 solution. The SnO2 solution and PEGDA-modified solution were spin-coated on

the cleaned ITO substrate at 3000 rpm for 30 s and the film was annealed at 150°C for

30 min. For the deposition of FAPbI3 perovskite thin film, 1.8 M PbI2, 1.8 M FAI, and

0.63 M MACl were dissolved in the mixed solvents of DMF and DMSO (DMF: DMSO

= 8:1 in volume ratio). The prepared precursor solution was spin-coated onto SnO2 at

5000 rpm for 20 s. 800 µL of diethyl ether was drop-cast onto the substrate at 10 s from

the beginning. Then, the film was annealed at 100 °C for 5 mins and 150°C 20 mins

conducted in the atmosphere. For the fabrication of hole transport layer, 100 mg of

Spiro-OMeTAD, 39 µL of tBP, 10 µL of Co (III) TFSI solution (300 mg/ml in

acetonitrile), 23 µL of Li-TFSI solution (260 mg/ml in acetonitrile), and 1094 µL of

chlorobenzene were mixed and stirred. 45 µL of the HTL solution was loaded onto the

perovskite substrate and spin coated at 4000 rpm for 20 s in the nitrogen glovebox.

Then, 12 nm-thick MoO3 and 100 nm-thick silver were thermally evaporated as

electrode.

Device characterizations: The current density–voltage (J-V) characteristics of the

pero-SCs are measured in a nitrogen glove box (oxygen and water contents are less than

0.1 ppm) equipped with a Keithley 2450 Sourcemeter Measure, using Oriel Sol 3A

Class Solar Simulator (model, Newport 94023A) with 450W xenon lamp and air mass

(AM) 1.5 filter as the light source. The light intensity is calibrated to 100 mW cm-2 by

a Newport Oriel 91150V reference cell. And the effective area of the tested device is

0.06 cm2.The external quantum efficiency (EQE) value is measured by the solar cell

spectral response measurement system QE-R3-011 (Taiwan Enli Technology Co., Ltd.).

S3
Standard single-crystal silicon photovoltaic cells are used to calibrate the light intensity

of each wavelength.

In the TPC measurements, the pero-SCs were fabricated with the same method as

mentioned above. The test setting as below: Light Intensity: 100.00 %, Pulse Length:

400 us, Offset Intensity: 90.0 %, Settling Time: 400 us, Follow-up Time: 400 us. The

data were obtained by the all-in-one characterization platform, Paios (Fluxim AG,

Switzerland).

UV-Vis absorption spectra and optical transmission spectra were measured on a

UV-Vis spectrometer (Shimadzu UV -2600, Japan). The SEM images were measured

on field-emission scanning electron microscopy (S-4800, Japan). TRPL decay profiles

were obtained using an Edinburgh EPL with time-correlated single-photon counting

capabilities. The films were excited by a 485 nm pulse laser with a repetition frequency

of 500 kHz provided by a picosecond pulsed diode laser (FLS980, Edinburgh), the pulse

width is 118.6 ps. And PL spectra was measured on Horiba fluorescence spectrometer

(Fluoro Max+, France). The UPS and XPS measurements were conducted a Kratos

ULTRA AXIS DLD photoelectron spectroscopy system with an ultra-high vacuum of

3 × 10−9 Torr. He-discharge lamp (21.22 eV) and a monochromatic Al Kα X-ray

(1486.6 eV) excitation sources were taken as excitation source. The samples were

biased at 9.0 V to obtain the electron analyzer for obtaining the secondary electron

cutoff (SECO) spectra. The Fermi edge was calibrated from a UPS spectrum of the Ar+-

sputtered clean Au substrate and it was referred to as the zero-binding energy in all the

UPS and XPS spectra. AFM images were measured on scanning probe microscope

S4
AFM2 (American Vecoo). FTIR spectra was obtained on Fourier infrared spectrometer

(TENSOR-27, German BRUKER). XRD spectra was obtained on X-ray diffractometer

P2 (Empyrean, Netherlands). DLS spectra was obtained on dynamic light scattering

(ALV CGS-3, Germany). KPFM spectra was obtained on multi-mode scanning probe

microscope (Bruker Multimode-8, U.S.A). Impedance spectroscopy was performed

with a commercial apparatus (Arkeo, Cicci Research s.r.l.).

S5
Supporting Figures

Figure S1. N1s XPS spectra of the pristine perovskite and PEGDA modified perovskite films.

Figure S2. FTIR spectra of the perovskite and perovskite covered by PEGDA films. In our
perovskite component, the A position is the formamidine ion, which contains the signal of the
C=N bond, whose FTIR wavenumber is relatively close to that of the C=O bond in PEGDA.
Therefore, in our test, the signal of the C=O bond of PEGDA may be masked by the perovskite.
When the concentration of PEGDA was increased, the above FTIR image appeared.

S6
Figure S3. The cross-sectional SEM image for the complete device structure based on the
PEGDA modified SnO2 ETL. The structure of pero-SCs is glass/ITO/pristine SnO2 or PEGDA
modified SnO2 /FAPbI3/Spiro-OMeTAD/MoO3/Ag.

Figure S4 (a) UV-Vis absorption spectra of the perovskite films prepared based on SnO2 films
without and with PEGDA modification. (b) The optical bandgap of perovskite films prepared
based on SnO2 films without and with PEGDA modification can be determined via linear
extrapolation of the leading edges of the (𝜶hv)2 curve to the base lines. It can be found that the
absorption leading edge is at 1.51 eV from (𝜶hv)2-hv relationship, indicating that the bandgap
of perovskite layer is 1.51 eV. PEGDA modified SnO2 doesn’t change the bandgap of
perovskite layer.

Figure S5. Humidity stability comparison. The upper part is ITO substrate and the lower part
is laser-etched glass substrate. It can be seen that perovskite on the laser-etched glass substrate

S7
decays more rapidly because the laser-etched glass substrate is rougher and absorbs more
water.

Figure S6. The XRD test for humidity stability comparison. After 1000 hours of storage at
45%-55% RH, XRD was used to test the perovskite on the two substrates. When the black
phase (α-FAPbI3) changed to the yellow phase (δ-FAPbI3), the crystal volume increases and
the signal of SnO2 is masked1, 2.

S8
Supporting Notes

Note S1:

The energy levels of pristine SnO2, the PEGDA modified SnO2 and perovskites

were determined using ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS), and the band

alignment between the ETL and perovskite determines the effectiveness of electron

extraction and the recombination rate.3 The whole UPS spectra were shown in Figure

S7. The secondary electron cut-off edge and Fermi-edge can be obtained by tangent

extrapolation from the UPS spectrum. The secondary electron cut-off edge is 16.93 eV

for the pristine SnO2 and 17.83 eV for the PEGDA modified SnO2, and the Fermi-edge

is −3.53 eV for the pristine SnO2, and −4.36 eV for the PEGDA modified SnO2 (see

Figure S9a and S9b). Thus, the work function (Ws) of the pristine SnO2 and the PEGDA

modified SnO2 could be calculated to be −4.29 eV and −3.39 eV, respectively. The

valance band maximum energy level (EVBM) of the pristine SnO2/ PEGDA modified

SnO2 are −7.82 eV and −7.75 eV, respectively. The optical band gap (Eg) of SnO2 was

confirmed by a corresponding Tauc plot derived from UV−vis, showing the value of

3.79 eV (see Figure S8b). Therefore, the conduction band minimum (ECBM) values of

the pristine SnO2 and the PEGDA modified SnO2 were calculated to be −4.03 eV and

−3.96 eV respectively. Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) was further adopted to

test the surface potential and determine the work function of pristine SnO2 and the

PEGDA modified SnO2. The detailed calculation process was shown in Note S2. As

shown in Figure S9d, S9e and S9f, the surface potential of the PEGDA modified SnO2

increases by 50 mV, and the work function increases from −4.983 eV to −4.933 eV,

compared with the pristine SnO2, which is consistent with UPS results. It is known from

S9
previous reports that the ECBM of α-FAPbI3 is −3.95 eV.4 Thus, the energy alignments

between FAPbI3 and ETL were shown in Figure S9c. It could be found that the ECBM

of the PEGDA modified SnO2 shifted upwards, resulting in a better energy alignment

between α-FAPbI3 and SnO2 ETL, which could realize the efficient electron transfer

without energy barrier and the enhanced charge transport and Voc. 5

Figure S7. UPS spectra of the pristine SnO2 and PEGDA modified SnO2 films.

Figure S8 (a) UV-Vis absorption spectra of the SnO2. (b) The optical bandgap of SnO2 via
linear extrapolation of the leading edges of the (𝜶hv)2 curve to the base lines. It can be found
that the absorption leading edge is at 3.79 eV from (𝜶hv)2-hv relationship, indicating that the
bandgap of SnO2 is 3.79 eV.

S10
Figure S9. Band structure properties of the pristine SnO2 and the PEGDA modified SnO2. (a)
Ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) cutoff edge of the pristine SnO2 (black) and the
PEGDA modified SnO2 (red). (b) Valence band spectra of the pristine SnO2 (black) and the
PEGDA modified SnO2 (red) from UPS measurements. (c) Possible band alignment of the
PEGDA modified SnO2 and the FAPbI3 perovskite layer according to their conduction bands.
The energy bands of the PEGDA modified SnO2 (gray), FAPbI3 perovskite layer (red) and
Spiro-OMeTAD (blue) are shown. For each material, the highest and the lowest energy levels
are conduction band (ECBM) and valence band (EVBM), respectively. Surface potentials and
corresponding work function of (d) Au reference sample (e) pristine SnO2 and (f) PEGDA
modified SnO2 on ITO.

Note S2:
Calculation details of work function of different materials (Li et al.,2019)6:
Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) is performed to probe work function of
different materials. The relationship between the work function of the conductive tip Φt
and sample Φs, is given by:
Φs = Φt - eVsp
where e is the elementary charge and Vsp is the surface potential difference between the
conductive tip and sample. Φt is confirmed by setting the work function of Au to be 5.1
eV.

Note S3:
The calculation formula is as follows:
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑠
𝐶𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 = × 100%
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑠 (𝑐𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 + 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠)

S11
Note S4:

TRPL results were fitted with the following bi-exponential decay function:7, 8

( t
)
I(t) = I0 + A1exp ― τ1 + A2exp ― τ2 ( t
) (1)

where τ1 and τ2 represent the fast and slow decay lifetime constant, respectively. A1 and

A2 represent the relative amplitude fractions for τ1 and τ2, respectively.9 Generally, τ1 is

primarily dictated by interfacial charge transfer and τ2 is correlated to radiative

emissions from the bulk of perovskites.10 The detailed fitted results are listed in Table

S1. Compared with the pristine SnO2, the time constant τ1 for fast decay of the

perovskite films on PEGDA modified SnO2 substrate decreased from 126.27 ns to

47.11 ns and the time constant τ2 for slow decay decreased from 595.71 ns to 221.65

ns. The decrease of τ1 indicates that the PEGDA modification enhanced the capability

of carrier extraction, which could be attributed to the more uniform ETL and the well-

matched energy levels between ETL and perovskite. Therefore, the Jsc might be slightly

enhanced. The decrease of τ2 implied the reduction of defect density in perovskite,

which could be attributed to the passivation of defects on the surface of perovskite by

O atoms in PEGDA, resulting in a corresponding increase in Voc and FF.11, 12

Depending on τ1 and τ2, the average carrier lifetime (τave) can also be calculated

using the following formula:13

τave = (A1τ12 + A2τ22)/(A1τ1 + A2τ2) (2)

S12
 The electron-transport yield (Φtr) can be further calculated based on τave, and the

formula is as follows:13, 14

τp
Φtr = 1 ― τglass (3)

where τp is the average lifetime for perovskite deposited on any type of ETL, and τglass

is the average lifetime for perovskite deposited on glass substrate.

Note S5:

In order to further explore the carrier transport mechanism, the response of the

devices under various light intensities was investigated. The relationship between Voc

and light intensity (Plight) is plotted in Figure S10a. It can be seen that the slope of Voc

vs. ln Plight for the device based on pristine SnO2 is 1.98 kT/q, while the slope of the

device based on PEGDA modified SnO2 is reduced to 1.30 kT/q (where k is the

Boltzmann constant, T represents the absolute temperature and q represents the

elementary charge). As we know, the deviation of the slope from unity kT/q suggests a

trap-assisted charge recombination in solar cells.15 This indicates that the device with

the PEGDA modified SnO2 ETL has fewer defects due to the passivation of perovskite

surface by PEGDA, which is consistent with the PL analysis in Figure 3e. The plot of

log Jsc vs. log Plight showed clear linear dependence with slopes approaching 1 for both

devices based on the PEGDA modified SnO2 and the pristine SnO2 (see Figure S10b),

which proves that the bimolecular recombination in the device can be neglected.16

S13
 The electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was further used to investigate the

charge transfer process and contact resistance of the devices based on PEGDA modified

SnO2 and pristine SnO2 devices. Figure S10c shows the Nyquist plots of the devices

using different ETLs measured at open-circuit voltage in the frequency range of 1.00

kHz to 1.00 MHz under one sun illumination, with the equivalent circuit shown in

Figure S11 and the corresponding fitting results were presented in Table S4. In the EIS

analysis, high frequency component is characteristic of transfer resistance (Rtr), while

low frequency component is characteristic of recombination resistance (Rrec).14, 16 The

Rtr is associated with the pristine SnO2–perovskite or the PEGDA modified SnO2–

perovskite interface since the perovskite–HTL interface is identical in both cases. For

the device based on PEGDA modified SnO2, the Rtr decreased from 16.79 Ω to 5.42 Ω,

and the Rrec increased from 32.01 Ω to 75.38 Ω, indicating that carrier extraction was

enhanced, and carrier recombination was restrained.

In order to further investigate the carrier transport and recombination dynamics,

transient photocurrent (TPC) is performed. Figure S10d showed the TPC curves of the

devices based on pristine SnO2 and PEGDA modified SnO2. The carrier lifetime of the

device with PEGDA modified SnO2 ETL decreased from 1.01 μs to 0.64 μs, indicating

the increased efficiency of carrier extraction.17

S14
Figure S10. Charge transfer in the devices with different electron transport layers. Plots of (a) Voc

and (b) Jsc vs. light intensity. (c) EIS of the planar-type pero-SCs with various ETLs. (d) Transient

photocurrent decay curves using pristine SnO2 and PEGDA modified SnO2 as electron transport

layers.

Figure S11. The equivalent circuit model for EIS. The equivalent circuit composed of the
series resistance (Rs), the Rtr and the Rrec.

S15
Supporting Tables
Table S1. Fitted results of TRPL spectra of the perovskite films deposited on the glass, pristine
SnO2 and PEGDA modified SnO2 substrates.

Substrate A1 τ1 (ns) A2 τ2 (ns) τave (ns) Φtr (%)

Glass/PVK 92.21 408.77 255.72 1201.56 1114.93 --

Glass/SnO2/PVK 41.63 126.27 350.13 595.71 584.17 48

Glass/SnO2+
54.75 47.11 248.00 221.65 213.83 81
PEGDA/PVK

S16
Table S2. The J-V parameters of PSCs based on pristine SnO2 substrate.

Devices Voc (V) Jsc (mAcm-2) FF (%) PCE (%)

1 1.04 24.80 79.33 20.46
2 1.04 24.76 78.24 20.14
3 1.05 24.76 79.63 20.70
4 1.04 24.77 78.24 20.16
5 1.06 24.74 79.49 20.85
6 1.07 24.63 78.44 20.67
7 1.07 24.59 78.36 20.61
8 1.03 24.57 79.09 20.02
9 1.04 24.66 77.81 19.96
10 1.05 24.60 77.41 20.00
11 1.05 24.67 78.06 20.22
12 1.06 24.69 77.68 20.33
13 1.07 24.62 77.98 20.54
14 1.08 24.63 77.94 20.73
15 1.05 24.73 77.85 20.22
16 1.07 24.91 78.67 20.97
17 1.07 24.75 78.03 20.66
18 1.10 24.48 77.35 20.83
19 1.09 24.39 76.57 20.36
20 1.09 24.36 77.13 20.48
21 1.07 24.59 78.04 20.53
22 1.05 24.42 78.48 20.12
23 1.05 24.39 78.63 20.14
24 1.10 24.73 79.73 21.69
25 1.09 24.94 78.82 21.42
26 1.09 24.76 80.58 21.75
27 1.06 24.98 78.71 20.85
28 1.05 24.97 78.17 20.49
29 1.03 25.26 80.50 20.94
30 1.03 25.08 78.66 20.32
31 1.02 25.32 80.13 20.70
32 1.09 24.71 80.17 21.59
33 1.08 24.79 80.19 21.47
34 1.07 25.11 78.59 21.12
35 1.10 24.10 79.53 21.08
36 1.08 25.07 78.68 21.30
37 1.08 25.10 78.72 21.34
38 1.07 25.08 76.97 20.66
39 1.08 25.13 75.92 20.60
40 1.10 24.90 78.63 21.54
Average 1.07±0.02 24.76±0.26 78.53±1.05 20.70±0.50

S17
Table S3. The J-V parameters of PSCs based on PEGDA modified SnO2 substrate.

Devices Voc (V) Jsc (mAcm-2) FF (%) PCE (%)

1 1.11 25.18 82.65 23.10
2 1.12 25.19 81.91 23.11
3 1.13 25.37 80.90 23.19
4 1.12 24.58 81.42 22.42
5 1.11 25.29 80.56 22.62
6 1.11 25.05 79.72 22.17
7 1.11 25.34 80.30 22.58
8 1.11 25.27 81.49 22.86
9 1.12 25.16 80.66 22.73
10 1.10 24.91 80.26 21.99
11 1.11 25.23 79.68 22.31
12 1.11 25.12 80.81 22.53
13 1.12 25.27 81.90 23.18
14 1.13 25.23 81.03 23.10
15 1.13 25.19 79.67 22.67
16 1.13 25.30 79.44 22.71
17 1.11 25.12 80.26 22.38
18 1.11 25.23 80.28 22.48
19 1.11 25.20 80.53 22.52
20 1.10 24.71 80.73 21.94
21 1.11 24.84 80.63 22.24
22 1.12 25.29 81.96 23.22
23 1.14 25.24 81.00 23.31
24 1.14 25.10 79.05 22.62
25 1.13 25.34 80.19 22.96
26 1.12 25.38 80.58 22.90
27 1.11 24.90 80.35 22.21
28 1.12 24.30 79.47 21.63
29 1.12 24.99 80.30 22.48
30 1.11 24.93 80.38 22.24
31 1.10 24.56 80.59 21.77
32 1.11 24.67 79.62 21.80
33 1.11 24.71 79.38 21.77
34 1.11 24.58 81.87 22.34
35 1.12 25.01 81.82 22.92
36 1.14 24.88 80.55 22.85
37 1.13 24.88 79.32 22.30
38 1.12 25.01 80.21 22.47
39 1.11 24.64 81.93 22.41
40 1.11 24.65 81.76 22.37
Average 1.12±0.01 25.02±0.28 80.63±0.88 22.53±0.44

S18
Table S4. Fitted EIS parameters for the PSCs based on pristine SnO2 and PEGDA modified
SnO2 ETLs.

ETL Rs (Ω) Rtr (Ω) Ctr (F) Rrec (Ω) Crec (F)

SnO2 17.27 16.79 1.39×10-9 32.01 3.71×10-8

SnO2+PEGDA 16.41 5.42 6.02×10-10 75.38 3.78×10-8

S19
Table S5. The summary of perovskite solar cells’ efficiency and photo stability based on SnO2
ETL.

PCE Photo
Year Modified Strategy Ref.
(%) Stability

2018 EDTA:SnO2 21.60 120h, 86% 14

2018 PEG:SnO2 20.80 Not mentioned 18

2019 TPPO:SnO2 20.69 Not mentioned 19

2019 NH4Cl:SnO2 21.38 Not mentioned 20

2019 KCl:SnO2 22.2 120h, 87,7% 21

2019 PEIE:SnO2 20.61 2h, 40% 22

2019 SnO2/PS 20.50 72h, 90% 23

2,2,2- 24
2019 20.92 Not mentioned
trifluoroethanol:SnO2

Carbon quantum 25
2020 22.77 100h, 87%
dot:SnO2

Heparin potassium: 26
2020 23.06 1000h, 97%
SnO2

2020 Graphdiyne:SnO2 21.11 Not mentioned 27

2021 SnO2/RbF 23.38 Not mentioned 28

2021 CoCl2:SnO2 23.82 200h, 83.5% 5

2021 GRT:SnO2 21.63 672h, 80.7% 13

2021 cPCN:SnO2 23.17 Not mentioned 9

This
2021 PEGDA:SnO2 23.31 850h, 93%
work

S20
REFERENCES

1. Stoumpos, C. C.; Malliakas, C. D.; Kanatzidis, M. G., Semiconducting tin and

lead iodide perovskites with organic cations: phase transitions, high mobilities,

and near-infrared photoluminescent properties. Inorg. Chem. 2013, 52 (15),

9019-38.

2. Jeon, N. J.; Noh, J. H.; Yang, W. S.; Kim, Y. C.; Ryu, S.; Seo, J.; Seok,

S. I., Compositional engineering of perovskite materials for high-performance

solar cells. Nature 2015, 517 (7535), 476-80.

3. Kuang, Y.; Zardetto, V.; van Gils, R.; Karwal, S.; Koushik, D.;

Verheijen, M. A.; Black, L. E.; Weijtens, C.; Veenstra, S.; Andriessen,

R.; Kessels, W. M. M.; Creatore, M., Low-Temperature Plasma-Assisted

Atomic-Layer-Deposited SnO2 as an Electron Transport Layer in Planar

Perovskite Solar Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10 (36), 30367-

30378.

4. Ma, F.; Li, J.; Li, W.; Lin, N.; Wang, L.; Qiao, J., Stable alpha/delta

phase junction of formamidinium lead iodide perovskites for enhanced near-

infrared emission. Chem. Sci. 2017, 8 (1), 800-805.

5. Wang, P.; Chen, B.; Li, R.; Wang, S.; Ren, N.; Li, Y.; Mazumdar, S.;

Shi, B.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, X., Cobalt Chloride Hexahydrate Assisted in

Reducing Energy Loss in Perovskite Solar Cells with Record Open-Circuit

Voltage of 1.20 V. ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 2121-2128.

6. Zheng, Y.; Jiang, B.; Gao, Z.; Lin, G.; Sang, N.; Chen, L.; Li, M.,

S21
 Optimization of SnO2-based electron-selective contacts for Si/PEDOT:PSS

heterojunction solar cells. Sol. Energy 2019, 193, 502-506.

7. Chen, J.; Zhao, X.; Kim, S. G.; Park, N. G., Multifunctional Chemical

Linker Imidazoleacetic Acid Hydrochloride for 21% Efficient and Stable Planar

Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31 (39), 1902902.

8. Li, Y.; Meng, L.; Yang, Y. M.; Xu, G.; Hong, Z.; Chen, Q.; You, J.;

Li, G.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y., High-efficiency robust perovskite solar cells on

ultrathin flexible substrates. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10214.

9. Li, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Xiong, Q.; Deng, L.; Li, X.; Zhou, Q.;

Fang, Y.; Gao, P., cPCN-Regulated SnO2 Composites Enables Perovskite Solar

Cell with Efficiency Beyond 23%. Nanomicro Lett. 2021, 13 (1), 101.

10. You, S.; Wang, H.; Bi, S.; Zhou, J.; Qin, L.; Qiu, X.; Zhao, Z.; Xu,

Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, X.; Zhou, H.; Tang, Z., A Biopolymer Heparin

Sodium Interlayer Anchoring TiO2 and MAPbI3 Enhances Trap Passivation and

Device Stability in Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30 (22), 1706924.

11. Lee, J. W.; Kim, H. S.; Park, N. G., Lewis Acid-Base Adduct Approach for

High Efficiency Perovskite Solar Cells. Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49 (2), 311-9.

12. Xu, W.; Zhu, T.; Wu, H.; Liu, L.; Gong, X., Poly(Ethylene Glycol)

Diacrylate as the Passivation Layer for High-Performance Perovskite Solar

Cells. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12 (40), 45045-45055.

13. Bi, H.; Zuo, X.; Liu, B.; He, D.; Bai, L.; Wang, W.; Li, X.; Xiao,

Z.; Sun, K.; Song, Q.; Zang, Z.; Chen, J., Multifunctional organic

S22
 ammonium salt-modified SnO2 nanoparticles toward efficient and stable planar

perovskite solar cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 2021, 9 (7), 3940-3951.

14. Yang, D.; Yang, R.; Wang, K.; Wu, C.; Zhu, X.; Feng, J.; Ren, X.;

Fang, G.; Priya, S.; Liu, S. F., High efficiency planar-type perovskite solar

cells with negligible hysteresis using EDTA-complexed SnO2. Nat. Commun.

2018, 9 (1), 3239.

15. Bu, T.; Li, J.; Zheng, F.; Chen, W.; Wen, X.; Ku, Z.; Peng, Y.;

Zhong, J.; Cheng, Y. B.; Huang, F., Universal passivation strategy to slot-die

printed SnO2 for hysteresis-free efficient flexible perovskite solar module. Nat.

Commun. 2018, 9 (1), 4609.

16. Yang, D.; Zhou, X.; Yang, R.; Yang, Z.; Yu, W.; Wang, X.; Li, C.;

Liu, S.; Chang, R. P. H., Surface optimization to eliminate hysteresis for record

efficiency planar perovskite solar cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9 (10),

3071-3078.

17. Li, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, Q.; Yang, Y. M.; Liu, Y.; Hong, Z.; Liu, Z.;

Hsieh, Y. T.; Meng, L.; Li, Y.; Yang, Y., Multifunctional Fullerene

Derivative for Interface Engineering in Perovskite Solar Cells. J. Am. Chem.

Soc. 2015, 137 (49), 15540-7.

18. Wei, J.; Guo, F.; Wang, X.; Xu, K.; Lei, M.; Liang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Xu,

D., SnO2 -in-Polymer Matrix for High-Efficiency Perovskite Solar Cells with

Improved Reproducibility and Stability. Adv. Mater. 2018, 30 (52), 1805153.

19. Tu, B.; Shao, Y.; Chen, W.; Wu, Y.; Li, X.; He, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, F.;

S23
 Zhang, Z.; Lin, Y.; Lan, X.; Xu, L.; Shi, X.; Ng, A. M. C.; Li, H.;

Chung, L. W.; Djurisic, A. B.; He, Z., Novel Molecular Doping Mechanism

for n-Doping of SnO2 via Triphenylphosphine Oxide and Its Effect on

Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31 (15), 1805944.

20. Liu, Z.; Deng, K.; Hu, J.; Li, L., Coagulated SnO2 Colloids for High-

Performance Planar Perovskite Solar Cells with Negligible Hysteresis and

Improved Stability. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2019, 58 (33), 11497-11504.

21. Zhu, P.; Gu, S.; Luo, X.; Gao, Y.; Li, S.; Zhu, J.; Tan, H.,

Simultaneous Contact and Grain‐Boundary Passivation in Planar Perovskite

Solar Cells Using SnO2‐KCl Composite Electron Transport Layer. Adv. Energy

Mater. 2019, 10 (3), 1903083.

22. Huang, X.; Du, J.; Guo, X.; Lin, Z.; Ma, J.; Su, J.; Feng, L.; Zhang,

C.; Zhang, J.; Chang, J.; Hao, Y., Polyelectrolyte‐Doped SnO2 as a Tunable

Electron Transport Layer for High‐Efficiency and Stable Perovskite Solar Cells.

Sol. RRL 2019, 4 (1), 1900336.

23. Wu, J.; Cui, Y.; Yu, B.; Liu, K.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Shi, J.; Wu, H.;

Luo, Y.; Li, D.; Meng, Q., A Simple Way to Simultaneously Release the

Interface Stress and Realize the Inner Encapsulation for Highly Efficient and

Stable Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29 (49), 1905336.

24. Luan, Y.; Yi, X.; Mao, P.; Wei, Y.; Zhuang, J.; Chen, N.; Lin, T.;

Li, C.; Wang, J., High-Performance Planar Perovskite Solar Cells with

Negligible Hysteresis Using 2,2,2-Trifluoroethanol-Incorporated SnO2.

S24
 iScience 2019, 16, 433-441.

25. Hui, W.; Yang, Y.; Xu, Q.; Gu, H.; Feng, S.; Su, Z.; Zhang, M.;

Wang, J.; Li, X.; Fang, J.; Xia, F.; Xia, Y.; Chen, Y.; Gao, X.;

Huang, W., Red-Carbon-Quantum-Dot-Doped SnO2 Composite with Enhanced

Electron Mobility for Efficient and Stable Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Mater.

2020, 32 (4), 1906374.

26. You, S.; Zeng, H.; Ku, Z.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Rong, Y.; Zhao, Y.;

Zheng, X.; Luo, L.; Li, L.; Zhang, S.; Li, M.; Gao, X.; Li, X.,

Multifunctional Polymer-Regulated SnO2 Nanocrystals Enhance Interface

Contact for Efficient and Stable Planar Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Mater. 2020,

32 (43), 2003990.

27. Zhang, S.; Si, H.; Fan, W.; Shi, M.; Li, M.; Xu, C.; Zhang, Z.;

Liao, Q.; Sattar, A.; Kang, Z.; Zhang, Y., Graphdiyne: Bridging SnO2 and

Perovskite in Planar Solar Cells. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2020, 59 (28),

11573-11582.

28. Zhuang, J.; Mao, P.; Luan, Y.; Chen, N.; Cao, X.; Niu, G.; Jia, F.;

Wang, F.; Cao, S.; Wang, J., Rubidium Fluoride Modified SnO2 for Planar

n‐i‐p Perovskite Solar Cells. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31 (17), 2010385.

S25