Review

www.advmat.de

Perovskite Solar Cells for Space Applications: Progress

and Challenges
Yongguang Tu,* Jiang Wu, Guoning Xu, Xiaoyu Yang, Rong Cai, Qihuang Gong,*
Rui Zhu,* and Wei Huang*
as, exceptional solution processability.[7,8]
Metal halide perovskites have aroused burgeoning interest in the field The general chemical formula of metal
of photovoltaics owing to their versatile optoelectronic properties. The halide perovskite is ABX3, where A is a
outstanding power conversion efficiency, high specific power (i.e., power to monovalent cation (such as FA+ [ forma-
weight ratio), compatibility with flexible substrates, and excellent radiation midinium], MA+ [methylammonium], or
Cs+), B is a divalent metal cation (such
resistance of perovskite solar cells (PSCs) enable them to be a promising
as Pb2+, Sn2+, or Ge2+), and X is a mono-
candidate for next-generation space photovoltaic technology. Nevertheless, valent halogen anion (such as I−, Br−,
compared with other practical space photovoltaics, such as silicon and or Cl−).[9] Photovoltaic devices based on
III-V multi-junction compound solar cells, the research on PSCs for space perovskite absorbers have achieved a cer-
applications is just in the infancy stage. Therefore, there are considerable tified power conversion efficiency (PCE)
of 25.5%[10] in single-junction devices and
interests in further strengthening relevant research from the perspective of
obtained a PCE above 26.7%[11] in tandem
both mechanism and technology. Consequently, the approaches used for and devices, in which the best PCE is com-
the consequences of PSCs for space applications are reviewed. This review parable to those of some commercially
provides an overview of recent progress in PSCs for space applications in available products on the photovoltaic
terms of performance evolution and mechanism exploration of perovskite market, such as crystalline silicon (HIT,
films and devices under space extreme environments. champion PCE of 26.7%), cadmium tel-
luride (CdTe, champion PCE of 22.1%),
gallium arsenide (GaAs, champion PCE of
27.8%), and copper indium gallium sele-
1. Introduction nide (CIGS, champion PCE of 23.4%) solar cells. In particular,
only sub-micron-thick absorber is needed in perovskite solar
Metal halide perovskites have sparked burgeoning interests cells because of perovskite’s high optical absorption coefficient
because of their superior semiconductor properties such as of about 104 cm−1,[12] therefore high specific power is expected.
panchromatic absorption of light,[1] long carrier lifetime,[2,3] low Combined with the low-temperature solution processability
exciton binding energy,[4] and high defect tolerance,[5,6] as well and radiation resistance,[13] these features render PSCs as a

Dr. Y. Tu, Prof. W. Huang Prof. G. Xu, Prof. R. Cai

Frontiers Science Center for Flexible Electronics (FSCFE) School of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Xi’an Institute of Flexible Electronics (IFE) & Xi’an Institute University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
of Biomedical Materials and Engineering (IBME) Beijing 100049, China
Northwestern Polytechnical University Prof. Q. Gong, Prof. R. Zhu
Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, China Peking University Yangtze Delta Institute of Optoelectronics
E-mail: iamygtu@nwpu.edu.cn; iamwhuang@nwpu.edu.cn Nantong, Jiangsu 226010, China
Dr. J. Wu, X. Yang, Prof. Q. Gong, Prof. R. Zhu Prof. Q. Gong, Prof. R. Zhu
State Key Laboratory for Artificial Microstructure Collaborative Innovation Center of Extreme Optics
and Mesoscopic Physics Shanxi University
School of Physics Taiyuan, Shanxi 030006, China
Frontiers Science Center for Nano-optoelectronics &
Prof. W. Huang
Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter
Key Laboratory of Flexible Electronics (KLoFE) & Institution
Peking University
of Advanced Materials (IAM)
Beijing 100871, China
Jiangsu National Synergetic Innovation Center
E-mail: qhgong@pku.edu.cn; zhurui3@pku.edu.cn
for Advanced Materials (SICAM)
Prof. G. Xu, Prof. R. Cai Nanjing Tech University
Aerospace Information Research Institute Nanjing, Jiangsu 211816, China
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Prof. W. Huang
Beijing 100094, China
Key Laboratory for Organic Electronics & Information Displays
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article (KLOEID) & Institute of Advanced Materials (IAM)
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202006545. Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
DOI: 10.1002/adma.202006545

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (1 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
potential technology to compete with other commercially avail-
able photovoltaics in some special application scenarios, for
example, space applications.
Despite the encouraging breakthroughs and extraordinary
potentials, the practical application of PSCs still faces the bot-
tleneck due to the instability.[14,15] Moisture and oxygen in the
ambient environment are the major pervasive stressors for the
stability of PSCs, which are able to solubilize and oxidize most
of functional components in solar cells. Specifically, hydrolysis
reactions could start in which water molecules react with organic
species to form hydrated intermediates, leading to the releasing
of HI byproducts and amine molecule. And oxygen would lead
photo-oxidation and subsequent decomposition: superoxide
(O2−) anions formed as molecular oxygen accept photo-exited
electrons from the perovskite conduction band could deproto-
nate the ammonium cation to accelerate the decomposition of
perovskites.[16] Remarkably, these stressors can be weakened in
space where oxygen and moisture barely exist. What’s more,
PSCs performed better radiation resistance than glass[13] and
presented an ultra-high specific power, that is, obtainable elec-
tric power per mass (>20 W g−1)[17] that is hardly achieved by
other types of solar cells. These features make PSCs promising
for becoming the new-generation energy technology for space
applications. Furthermore, the main limitations of PSCs on the
Earth, such as lead toxicity[18] and degradation due to humidity
and oxygen molecules, are no longer a poser in space.
Nevertheless, most of the current research on PSCs are
directed at terrestrial applications. The research of PSCs for
space applications is just in the infancy stage. Specific require-
ments should be satisfied for PSCs to be used in space.[19] Since
radiation in space is severe, particularly in the Van Allen radia-
tion belt, lattice defects are induced in semiconductors due to
high-energy particles irradiations (such as protons, electrons,
and gamma rays),[20] and these defects could cause a decrease
in the performance of PSCs, hindering their development for
Figure 1.  Spacecrafts in space.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (2 of 22)
www.advmat.de
space applications.[20] Today’s mainstream space photovoltaic
technologies, Si and III-V multi-junction compound solar cells
(CdTe, GaAs, CIGS), offer typical industrial efficiency in the
range of 30% (air mass 0, AM0) with a long heritage of reli-
ability. Therefore, PSCs for space applications is required to
have both reliable conversion efficiencies and outstanding radi-
ation resistances. The first report to put forward the concept of
the PSCs for space applications actually dates back to 2015 by
Hirose and coworkers.[21] Noteworthy, the real breakthrough
has been achieved when the PSCs were tested in the real envi-
ronment of the near space through the high-altitude science
balloon by Manca et al.[22] and Zhu et al.,[23] respectively.
Obvious extreme factors which may change the performance
of PSCs are present in space, such as high vacuum, strong irra-
diation, thermal cycling. With many knotty issues that need
to be solved, there is an urgent need for an up-to-date and
comprehensive review and summary of this direction. In this
review article, we provide a systematic overview of recent pro-
gress in PSCs for space applications. We first briefly introduce
the space environments and the specific requirement for PSCs.
In the second part, importantly, we review the effects of various
extreme environments on the properties of devices and films,
including the electron radiation, proton radiation, ultraviolet
rays, gamma-ray, and so on. In the third part, effect of the high
vacuum and alternating temperature on the PSC’s performance
will be reviewed. In the fourth part, we reviewed the flight
experiments of PSCs in the real environment of near space and
space. Finally, we provide the key challenge and prospect of
PSCs for further space applications.
2. Space Extreme Environments and Specific
Requirements for Space Cells
Human beings have invented a variety of spacecraft to
explore the cosmic space, as shown in Figure  1. Among these
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
spacecraft in aerospace, the typical representatives are the Inter-
national Space Station (ISS), the geostationary satellites and the
Tianwen-1 Mars Probe. Importantly, most of these spacecraft
use space solar cells to convert solar energy into electric energy,
providing continuous energy supply, and maintaining their
normal operation. Compared with the terrestrial environment
of human life, the cosmic space environment is very harsh.
In general, space is characterized by ultra-high vacuum and
extreme temperature, and also contains several high-energy
charged particles and rays. These physical and chemical char-
acteristics of space environment will directly affect the in-orbit
service performance and stability of the materials and devices
working in space, including spacecraft and their accessories.
This requires that the instruments and devices (for example,
space solar cells) working in space should meet the specific
requirements of space applications.
2.1. Characteristics of Space Environment
2.1.1. Strong Radiation
The strong radiation is obvious feature of space environment,
which mainly comes from solar cosmic rays, galactic cosmic
rays, and radiation belts. As shown in Figure  2, the radiation
in space mainly includes gamma rays, X-rays, β-rays, ultraviolet
rays, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.[24–26] These invisible
high-energy charged particles and rays pose a great threat to
both spacecraft and astronauts. These high-energy particles are
known to cause damages in semiconductors. When high-energy
charged particles interact with materials, they will transfer and
deposit their own momentum and energy in the materials.
And defects in the internal molecular structure of the radiated
object would be caused through ionization and atomic displace-
ment. If the object to be radiated is a spacecraft, it may cause
Figure 2.  Factors affecting PSC’s performance in space.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (3 of 22)
www.advmat.de
accelerated degradation of various materials and performance
degradation of electronic devices on the spacecraft. For example,
the output power of solar cells will be reduced, the performance
indexes of various semiconductor devices will decline or even
be damaged, the glass materials will become black. In serious
cases, it can make the spacecraft fail. Therefore, they are called
“shadowless killers,” which are the space environmental factors
that human space activities need to focus on.
Moreover, due to the lack of atmospheric scattering and
absorption, sunlight contains more ultraviolet rays, eventually
leading to AM0 solar spectrum with a higher total radiation
of 136.7  mW cm−2.[27] At present, the power conversion effi-
ciency of most solar cells in the laboratory are usually reported
for AM1.5 spectra. Far fewer measurements have been made
on cells under the extraterrestrial solar spectrum. Efficiency of
space solar cells measured under the AM0 spectrum is lower
than that under the AM1.5 spectrum because most of the addi-
tional light energy in the AM0 spectrum is in the infrared and
ultraviolet regions of the spectrum, where the spectral response
is very low.[28]
2.1.2. High Vacuum and Alternating Temperature
Another obvious feature of space environment is ultra-high
vacuum. The atmospheric pressure gradually decreases with
the increase of the distance from the ground. The atmospheric
is very thin in the low-Earth orbit, which is considered as a high
vacuum environment. For example, the atmospheric pressure
of space where the ISS is located is about 10−5–10−6 Pa. Due to
the lack of atmospheric blocking to radiation, the spacecraft is
completely exposed to particles and rays radiation. Meanwhile,
there is a lack of atmosphere for heat transmission and dissipa-
tion,[23] the temperature of spacecraft under direct sunlight can
be as high as 100–130 °C, while the temperature is lower than
−200 −150  °C without sunlight. For example, orbiting around
the Earth together with the ISS, space solar panels would mean
withstanding temperature cycles between −100 and 100  °C
every 45  min.[29] In the high vacuum environment, spacecraft
can only exchange heat through conduction between different
components and radiation between spacecraft and surrounding
environment. So the spacecraft and its accessories will with-
stand a wide range of temperature fluctuations.
2.2. Specific Requirements for Space Solar Cells
The rapid development of various scientific and commercial
space programs has made the manufacture of solar cells for
space applications an important part of the contemporary photo-
voltaic industry. Space applications of solar cells need to meet a
number of strict requirements such as: High performance, high
specific power, and long-term stability, as shown in Figure 3a.
2.2.1. High Performance
For space applications, like other predominant space photo-
voltaic technologies, PSCs must provide effective power on
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 3.  a) Specific requirements for space solar cells. b) Comparison between Si cells and PSCs.
satellites in the future because the daily operation depends
critically on the space cells. To date, PSCs have achieved the
excellent PCE, however, they must operate over a wide range
of temperature and sunlight intensity in the space environ-
ment. In addition, they should have good tolerance to radiation
damage caused from high-energy charged particles and rays in
space, especially in the natural radiation belts around the Earth.
Also, intense UV radiation and atomic oxygen which would
harm the semiconductor materials leading to a continuous
degradation of output performance.[30] Combined with these
special operating requirements, it is essential that PSCs are
high-performance when expose to harsh space environment.
2.2.2. High Specific Power
As mentioned above, space solar cells are subject to high-energy
charged particles or rays radiation, leading to severe degrada-
tion of the output performance. To prevent this, a thin layer of
protective layer (for example, special glass, typically up to hun-
dreds of microns thick) is required to screen the solar cells from
radiation, which inevitably increases the load weight. So the
high specific power is a paramount issue for space solar cells.
To date, silicon space solar cells have a thick light absorbing
layer and exhibit a specific power of less than 1 W g−1. Labora-
tory state-of-the-art III-V triple-junction GaInP/GaAs/GaInAs
thin-film solar cells exceed 3 W g−1 but strong rely on precious
materials and energy-intensive manufacturing.[31] The space
solar cells must have minimum weight in order to minimize
the launch load. One approach to maximize the specific power
is to develop flexible PSCs with lightweight properties, which
substitute the glass with a flexible thin substrate (for example
polymer foils). Flexible PSCs have shown a specific power of
23 W/g,[17] a dozen-time increase over that of c-Si or GaAs solar
cells. Moreover, this gives flexibility to the solar cells that can be
adapted to any kind of shape and are easy to deploy in space.
2.2.3. Long-Term Stability
Compared with Si cells, PSC has its unique merits, such as the
solution processability and flexibility. But the biggest difference is
that the lifetime of Si cells can exceed 20 years, while the
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (4 of 22)
www.advmat.de
stability of PSCs needs to be developed (Figure  3b). In addi-
tion to the high-performance and high specific power, the PSCs
must perform with long-term stability. It is difficult to replace
or repair space solar cells, which indicates that long-term sta-
bility is a must. Combined with these operating conditions, it
is essential that the solar cells are robust and highly reliable, to
withstand severe mechanical stress during launching, or when
exposed to severe temperature cycles as the satellite passes in
and out of the Earth’s shadow. These factors have dictated the
materials and manufacturing methods used for space cells,
where consistent high output and reliability must be ensured
by detailed in-line inspection and testing, and by validating the
environmental stability.[32]
3. Radiation Resistance of Perovskite Solar Cells
In this section, we will review the effect of high-energy parti-
cles and rays (such as, electron, proton, ultraviolent ray, gamma
rays, neutrons, X-ray, etc.) on the perovskite films and PSCs.
3.1. Electron Radiation Resistance
Electron is one of the most common high-energy particles in
space, which will affect the dielectric properties of the aerospace
materials, especially photosensitive materials and devices. Solar
cells are no exception. In general, defects would be created in the
semiconductor crystal of the solar cells under the electron
radiation and then serve as minority-carrier recombination
centers or majority-carrier trap centers. As for the PSCs, the
first electron radiation study was reported by Hirose et  al. in
2015.[21] 1 MeV electron radiation with dose as high as 1 × 1016
particle cm−2 (p cm−2) was adapted to process the PSCs, where
a quartz instead of soda lime glass was selected because the
latter would become darkened under the radiation. When
the high energy rays and particles bombard the soda lime glass,
the structural defects will produce. Those defects will change the
glass’s potential field and the electronic energy state, resulting
in impurity levels and new absorption bands. Space-qualified
glass made of ultra-thin cerium-doped glass is usually used to
prevent this effect for satellites and other space applications.[33]
Encouragingly, the short-circuit current (Jsc), open-circuit
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 4.  a) Simulation of charged particle trajectories in the PSCs. b) SEM image of perovskite films before and after electron irradiation. a,b) Repro-
duced with permission.[34] Copyright 2017, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. c) EQE spectra and J–V performance (insertion) of the PSCs
before and after the 1 MeV electron-beam radiation with a high flux of 1 × 1016 particles cm−2. Reproduced with permission.[35] Copyright 2018, Cell
Press. d) Schematic of a PSC used for the radiation test. e) Optical transmittance and photograph (insertion) of FTO glass substrates before and after
e-beam radiation. d,e) Reproduced with permission.[36] Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.

voltage (Voc), and external quantum efficiency (EQE) of PSCs
did not deteriorate under the electron radiation. Later, Atwater
et  al. conducted electron radiation study of PSCs under
vacuum 10−5 Torr with dose ranged from 1012 to 1016 p cm−2.[34]
If it is radiated from the quartz substrate side, the relatively
thick substrates will protect the devices from electron damage.
So the electron beam bombarded device from its back contract
side, not the quartz substrate side, to receive direct impact of
the electron. Based on the Monte Carlo simulation, most of
electrons penetrate the layer of PSCs with little scattering, and
stop in the quartz substrate, as shown in Figure  4a. No sig-
nificant changes were presented in terms of the morphology
and the crystal phase in the perovskites (Figure  4b). Finally,
electron radiation produced only caused ≈10% degradation of
PSCs’ performance at 1016 p cm−2 (Table 1). By comparison, this
exceeds the reported performance of GaAs cells (≈40% degra-
dation) and even radiation-hardened InP cells (≈20% degrada-
tion) at this flux,[20] which suggests the PSCs have intrinsically
superior radiation tolerance than established III-V space solar
technologies.
Besides, some other studies demonstrated similar results.
Miyasaka et  al. reported robust stability and high tolerance of
PSCs against high-flux electron and proton beams.[35] They
found that PSCs based on methylammonium and forma-
midinium can survive under accumulated dose levels up to
1016 p cm−2 of electrons (1 MeV). Electron beam-induced damage
on device performance was found to be very small. No obvious
degradation was observed in EQE (Figure  4c). However, crys-
talline Si-, GaAs-, and InGaP/GaAs-based solar cells for space
applications would be completely destroyed at the same dose.
These results further indicate the superior tolerance of PSCs.
Recently, Yan et al. investigated the effects of high-energy elec-
tron beam radiation on the degradation of PSCs with a high
PCE exceeding 20%.[36] The radiated cells (the device structure
was shown in Figure  4d.) retained superior remaining fac-
tors in both VOC and FF, demonstrating a superior tolerance
of PSCs after the exposure to the electron radiation. In this
work, FTO glass was selected as the substrate and darkened
phenomenon occurred when the devices were bombarded by
electron beam of different intensities (Figure  4e). A darkened
substrate would reduce the incident light and affect the Jsc of
device. These results show that PSCs hold great potential for
space applications if space-suitable substrates are employed.
Further, the relative physical mechanism was investigated. Xiao
et al. proposed that high-energy electron beam radiation mainly
results in two effects for halide perovskite: one is the electron
beam heating-induced defect formations and the other is elec-
tron beam heating-induced structural phase transformation.[37]
3.2. Proton Radiation Resistance
Spacecraft circulating on low-Earth orbit of outer space are
more susceptible to proton radiation in the MeV range.[38]
Proton radiation is another kind of ionizing particle radiation,
originating from either galactic cosmic radiation or solar flares.
On the orbit of spacecraft around the Earth the proton flux
varies between 103 and 108 particles cm−2 s−1.[39] In particular,

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (5 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Table 1.  Overview of high-energy charged particles radiation test of PSCs in the literature; some of the PCEs are estimated based on the remaining fac-
tors and the initial PCEs; consequently those estimated values may be imprecise; PCE results are obtained under AM 1.5G spectrum (100 mW cm−2).

Device configuration Initial PCE End PCE Energy Dose p cm−2 Year
Electron radiation
ITO/TiO2/FAPbI3/Spiro-OMeTAD/Ag 12.2% 13.3% 1 MeV 1012 2017[34]
13.4% 1014
12.4% 1015
≈11% 1016
ITO/TiO2/MAPbI3(Cl)/P3HT/Au 4.8% ≈4.5% 1 MeV 1016 2018[35]
ITO/TiO2/CsFAMAPb(IBr)3/P3HT/Au 4.4% ≈4.3% 1 MeV 1016 2018[35]
FTO/SnO2/C60-SAM/FAMAPbI3/Spiro-OMeTAD/Au 19.2% 12.2% 1 MeV 1013 2019[36]
3.4% 1015
Proton radiation
ITO/TiO2/MAPbI3/P3HT/Au ≈3% ≈2.8% 150 keV 1014 2015[21]
ITO/PEDOT:PSS/MAPbI3/PCBM/BCP/Ag 12.1% 6% 68 MeV 1013 2016[42]
ITO/NiO/MAPbI3/PCBM/Ag 12.3% ≈5.2% 50 keV 1012 2017[34]
13
ITO/PEDOT:PSS/MAPbI3/PCBM/BCP/Ag 4.7% 5.7% 68 MeV 10 2017[45]
ITO/TiO2/MAPbI3(Cl)/P3HT/Au 4.8% ≈5.3% 50 keV 1014 2018[35]
ITO/TiO2/FAMAPb(IBr)3/P3HT/Au 4.4% 3.5% 50 keV 1014 2018[35]
14
AZO/SnO2/CsFAMAPb(IBr)3/Spiro-OMeTAD/Au 15.0% ≈3.8% 150 keV 10 2019[33]
ITO/PTAA/CsMAFAPb(IBr)3/C60/BCP/Ag 18.8% 17.8% 20 MeV 1012 2019[44]
68 MeV
Neutron radiation
ITO/PEDOT:PSS/MAPbI3(Cl)/PCBM/Al 6% ≈5.2% 10 MeV 109 2019[46]

protons with energies close to 1 MeV have a high stopping
cross-section and can cause severe damage to electronic devices
and solar cells.[40] Because of the greater mass of proton than
electron (>2000 times), damage of perovskite films and devices
by proton collision should apply more concentrated study. This
has been shown to have a tremendous effect on the output per-
formance of Si, GaAs, and InP solar cells that are commonly
used in space.[41] In 2016, Neitzert et al. investigated the proton
radiation hardness of the inverted PSCs based on CH3NH3PbI3
and tracked the photovoltaic parameters in situ under illu-
mination during proton bombardment[42] (Figure  5a,b). To
ensure homogeneous defect creation throughout the entire
perovskite absorber, a proton energy of 68 MeV was selected
because of its projected range of several centimeters. The Voc
and FF remained constant, while the Jsc decreased upon proton
irradiation, inevitably leading to the rapid degradation of PCE
(Figure  5c). This is mainly attributed to the darkness of soda
lime glass under the radiation and the reduction of the incident
light. And the proton dose has a significant impact on the Jsc.
At a higher proton dose a decreased of Jsc and PCE is observed
with a reduction of around 10% and 40% for proton dose was
1012 and 1013 p cm−2, respectively. Remarkably, on a satellite
relevant orbit it usually takes about 3 years or less to accumu-
late a dose of 1012 p cm−2.[43] A similar situation emerged for
the commercially available crystalline Si cells at a lower proton
dose about 7  × 1011 p cm−2. These results clearly demonstrate
that the proton radiation hardness of PSCs is established to
be about three orders of magnitude higher than the c-Si cells,
making perovskite a desirable material in solar cells for space
applications. What is more, after the proton test, the Jsc and
PCE of the proton-radiation device increased continuously with
time, while the Voc and FF remained constant, indicating that a
self-healing capability of the PSCs.
Actually, only one proton energy employed in the proton test
is insufficient because the stopping range of high energy protons
is a function of their energy. Proton energies of 10 ± 3, 20 ± 3,
and 68 ± 1 MeV can reflect the energy distribution of protons
in space well. Protons with higher energies (several GeV) are
not accessible experimentally but they are also less common
in space.[43] Then the influence of different incident proton
energies on the performance and the properties of PSCs was
investigated,[44] as shown in Figure  5d. Inverted PSCs with a
structure of glass/ITO/PTAA/Cs0.05MA0.17FA0.83Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3/
C60/BCP/Cu were adapted in the proton test (Figure 5e,f). This
kind of PSCs possess a negligible degradation during radiation
up to an accumulated proton dose of 1012 p cm−2 (Figure  5g
and Table 1). After a direct comparison of as prepared and radi-
ated specimens (Figure  5h), there was no detrimental effect
of 20 MeV proton dose, and FF and Voc were even slightly
enhanced after radiation. In contrast, 68 MeV proton radiation
caused a very slight decrease in all photovoltaic parameters.
This result confirms the extraordinary stability of PSCs under
different high-energy proton radiation.
We mentioned earlier that it usually takes about 3 years or
less to accumulate a dose of 1012 p cm−2 on a satellite relevant
orbit. However, the spacecraft will be working in space for
longer time, not just three years. Further away from the Earth,
the proton dose will exceed 1012 p cm−2, where higher proton
doses maybe have unexpected effects. Along this line, Tsoi[33]
and Hirose[47] adapted higher proton doses (exceed 1012 p cm−2)

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (6 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 5.  a) A sketch of the inverted PSC. b) Cross-sectional SEM image of the inverted PSC consisting of the layer stack glass/ITO/PEDOT:PSS/
CH3NH3PbI3/PCBM/BCP/Ag. c) Normalized solar-cell parameters as a function of the proton dose, φ. Symbols depict the evolution of the Jsc, the FF,
the η (PCE), and the Voc of a perovskite solar cell. The red diamond depicts the normalized value of Jsc at the end of the proton irradiation experi-
ment after correcting for transmission losses due to color centers in the substrate. The blue curve shows the evolution of the Jsc of a c-Si photodiode.
a–c) Reproduced with permission.[42] Copyright 2016, Wiley-VCH. d) Simulated straggling of a 10 MeV, 20 MeV, 68 MeV, and 1 GeV proton beam in
SiO2 (quartz). e,f) Sketch and cross-sectional SEM micrograph of the investigated inverted PSCs consisting of the layer stack glass/ITO/PTAA/Cs0.05
MA0.17FA0.83Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3/C60/BCP/Cu. g) Evolution of η, Jsc, Voc, and FF of a set of PSCs during 20 and 68 MeV proton radiation as a function of the
accumulated proton dose Φ, normalized to non-proton radiated devices that were measured simultaneously. h) Statistics of η, Jsc, Voc, and FF of a
set of PSCs taken prior to and after proton irradiation with Φ = 1012 p cm−2. The proton energy was 20 or 68 MeV as indicated. d–h) Reproduced with
permission.[44] Copyright 2019, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (7 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

to process the PSCs and investigate their proton radia-
tion tolerance. When the PSCs with structure quartz/AZO/
SnO2/Cs0.05(MA0.17FA0.83)0.95Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3/Spiro/Au were
exposed to 150  keV proton radiation from 1012 to 1015 p cm−2.
The PCE slightly decreased at 1013 p cm−2 and a prominent
decrease was observed at 1014 p cm−2, mainly attributed to
a decrease in Jsc and FF. The PSCs were highly degraded at
1015 p cm−2 with a very low current (Figure 6a). The deterioration of
the current can be observed by EQE measurement (Figure 6b).
A stable EQE value at 1013 p cm−2 while a significant decrease
at 1014 p cm−2. At 1015 p cm−2, the EQE was almost null. These
results show higher proton doses have obvious effects on
the devices performance. As is well known, high-quality perov-
skite active layer is the key factor of high-performance PSCs.
The nondestructive techniques were used to investigate the
degradation mechanisms in perovskite films after proton
radiation, for example, photoluminescence (PL) and time reso-
lution photoluminescence measurement. PL intensity under-
went almost threefold increase in magnitude after 1012 p cm−2
as compared to the reference sample. However, a constant
decrease in PL intensity from 1013 p cm−2 onward (Figure  6c).
The perovskite films with different grain sizes did not exhibit a
significant decrease in intensity at dose of 1013 and 1014 p cm−2
but did exhibit a substantial decrease in intensity at a dose
of 1015 p cm−2. These findings suggest that the number of
recombination centers significantly increased with radiation
dose over 1015 p cm−2 (Figure 6d,e,f).
3.3. Ultraviolet Rays Resistance
In space, the solar spectrum becomes AM0 due to the lack
of atmospheric scattering and absorption. The UV radiation
(<400 nm), which comprises ≈6.8% of the solar power in AM1.5
and more in AM0 solar spectra, has been recognized to dete-
riorate the perovskite materials, especially when containing
organic components.[48,49] PSCs’ practical development is still
hindered by the stability issue under illumination conditions
containing UV radiation. To enhance the UV-photostability of
PSCs is now urgently crucial.
One promising strategy to fundamentally address the issue
is to convert UV photons into low energy photons and to
decrease the proportion of UV in the solar spectrum by inte-
gration of the photoluminescent materials into solar cells.
Specifically, a luminescent downshifting layer based on trans-
5-(p-(N,N-diphenylamino)styryl)-1,3-di(2-pyridyl)-benzene
was coated on organic solar cells to achieve about 4% PCE
improvement and long-term stability. A multifunctional light-
shifting V570 coating on dye-sensitized solar cells not only
resulted in a 60% PCE improvement, but also prevented dye

Figure 6.  a) Changes of photovoltaic characteristics (Jsc, FF, Voc, and PCE) of PSCs under AM1.5G illumination as a function of proton dose. b) EQE
for representative devices as a function of proton dose. c) Full perovskite solar cells’ PL intensity as a function of proton dose. a–c) Reproduced with
permission.[33] Copyright 2019, Wiley-VCH. Normalized TRPL decay curves showing the effects on perovskite grains before and after proton radiation for
d) small, e) medium, and f) large perovskite grains. d–f) Reproduced with permission.[47] Copyright 2019, American Chemical Society.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (8 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
decomposition.[50] Luminescence downconverting materials
can not only reduce the corrosion effect of UV on devices but
may also improve the PCE of the devices.[51] For instance, a
non-rare-earth phosphor (Sr4Al14O25:Mn4+, 0.5% Mg) parti-
cles with intensively red luminescence was integrated in the
PSCs as a luminescent down-shifting layer (Figure 7a).[52] Such
a phosphor could convert UV photons into red luminescence
(emission peak between 625 and 670 nm with a sharp peak at
about 650 nm) attributed to the typical emission of Mn4+, and
a uniform red emission over the entire area can be seen under
UV light (Figure  7b). Based on the same concept, a lumines-
cent downshifting V570-doped fluoropolymeric layer was
photogenerated on the front side of the PSCs (i.e., glass-side).
The V570-doped fluoropolymeric material could convert near-
UV region of the incident solar spectrum into lower-energy
photons, presenting a fluorescence process (Figure 7c).[53] And
it emitted photons that red-shifted to a region well matching
the absorption spectrum of the perovskite layer. As a result,
devices can achieve PCEs approaching 19% and an increase
of photocurrent by 6% without affecting the chemistry as well
as the electronic properties of both the photoactive and the
buffer layers (Figure  7d). The resulting devices demonstrated
unrivalled stability in terms of PCEs during a 180-day (4320 h)
aging test with a UV optical fiber having a 5 mW cm−2 inten-
sity (Figure 7e).
Besides, integrating a light-converting layer into the inte-
rior of the PSCs rather than attaching a layer outside can not
only achieve absorption of the converted light by photoactive
materials, but also affect carrier transportation and the recom-
bination process.[54–57] A luminescence downshifting material,
SrAl2O4: Eu2+, Dy3+ (SAED), was introduced into the interior
of the PSCs to improve UV photostability (Figure 7f).[58] SAED
exhibits a typically long-persistent afterglow characteristic due to
the fluorescence mechanism that electrons from the 4f7 ground
state are pumped to the 4f65d1 energy level of Eu2+, followed
by electron capture by a valence band reducing Eu2+ to Eu+
with a broad emission spectrum (Figure 7g).[59] A total of 92%
of its initial PCE kept after 100 h under continuous UV light
illumination for the device was modified by SAED compared to
40% for the control devices, indicating substantial enhanced
UV stability of the PSCs by SAED. To address the UV-induced
degradation, phosphor-in-glass (PiG), already mass-produced for
light emitting diode industry, was used to convert UV light
to visible light. A 200  µm thick PiG plate containing green
Lu3Al5O12:Ce3+ and orange SiAlON:Eu2+ phosphors was placed
on the surface of glass to prevent underlying PSCs from being
exposed to UV light of 365 nm wavelength and it emitted broad
yellow light from 460 to 680  nm (Figure  7h).[60] It was found
that the down-conversion of PiG increased IPCE of PSCs to
20–55% in UV regime (200–320 nm), and also decreased IPCE
from 320 to 800 nm because of the total reflectance (Figure 7i).
After 100 h-long 365  nm UV light illumination in air, PCE of
PSCs with PiG at AM 1.5G illumination was 440% larger than
that of conventional PSCs. Color of PSCs without PiG turned
into pale brown after 100 h-long UV radiation, indicating an
obvious degradation (Figure  7j). These results indicate that
implementation of luminescence downshifting materials into
PSCs is an effiective way to protect PSCs from UV light without
deteriorating PCE.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (9 of 22)
www.advmat.de
Most investigations have found the degradation process
could be easily accelerated by UV light exposure in TiO2-based
PSCs because of the photocatalytic properties of TiO2. The UV-
degradation in these devices are generally suffered from oxygen
vacancies and a deep trapping of injected electrons within
newly available sites in the TiO2 nanocrystal semiconductor.
This UV light-induced decomposition of PSCs under an UV
exposure can be rectified by substituting the TiO2 nanocrystal
with less photoactive semiconductor such as BaSnO3,[61] SnO2
passivation,[62] and 2D atomic sheets of titania (Ti1-δO2).[63]
Moreover, the hole transporting material based on NiOx can
be substituted by stable CuCrO2.[64] With regard to UV-induced
stability, some interfacial modification layers between the elec-
tron collection layer and the perovskite absorber layer have
been proposed, such as, silane coupling agent ((NH2(CH2)3Si
(OC2H5)3), (CH2CH(O)CH2O(CH2)3Si(OCH3)3), and (CH2  =
C(CH3)COO(CH2)3Si(OCH3)3)),[65] cesium salt.[66,67] Li et  al.
introduced CsCl for modifying TiO2 to prevent UV light from
directly influencing perovskite, leading to maintenance of more
than 70% of the original PCE after a prolonged intensive UV
radiation for 200 min while the untreated devices being almost
exhausted.[66] Almost at the same time, Snaith et  al. reported
the enhanced UV-light stability of planar PSCs with cesium
bromide (CsBr) interfacial modification.[67] When the resulting
devices were exposed to 365 nm 523 mW cm−2 UV illumination
(equivalent to 113 suns equivalent of UV light below 400  nm
in wavelength), the PCE remained more than 70% of its ini-
tial value even after 20  min UV radiation in air. By contrast,
the control devices showed nearly zero PCE under the same
condition. The CsBr layer could protect the perovskite against
UV-light induced decomposition (Figure 8a,b).
It is also a common strategy to develop more UV-resistant
perovskite materials to enhance the UV-photostability.[68–74] Li
et  al. reported an inorganic-perovskite/organic four-terminal
tandem solar cell (TSC) based on a top semitransparent inor-
ganic CsPbBr3 PSC and a bottom visible-near-infrared-absorbing
organic solar cell.[69] The vacuum-evaporated CsPbBr3 perov-
skite film showed semitransparent characteristics with a high
average visible transmittance of 90.9% in the wavelength
range from 530 to 800  nm (Figure  8c). As a UV filter, the top
CsPbBr3-based PSC can utilize UV light for photoelectric con-
version, avoiding the instability problem of UV light. When
four-terminal TSCs were tested under 120 h of UV light illumi-
nation, TSCs remained more than 99.4% of their initial PCEs
(Figure  8d). The UV-light intensity of 100  mW cm−2 is almost
equivalent to that of 22 suns and 120 kWh m−2 of UV-light radi-
ation power. According to the IEC-61345 industrial standard,
the solar cells could meet the industrial requirement in UV sta-
bility when it maintained over 95% of its initial efficiency after
receiving 15 kWh m−2 of UV-light radiation power.
3.4. Gamma-Ray Resistance
Gamma rays in space are produced by fusion in the core of
a star. Because of the protection of the Earth’s atmosphere, it
cannot reach the Earth’s lower atmosphere and can only be
detected in space. Metal lead halide perovskites have showed
great promise in gamma-ray detection by direction conversion
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 7.  a) The schematic of PSC structure with SAM/PMMA down-shifting layer coated on the FTO glass surface. b) Absorption (left ordinate) and
emission (right ordinate) spectra of the SAM/PMMA film. Absorbed UV light was down-shifted to the red light region (around 650 nm). The inset shows
a photograph of a 1.2 mg mL−1 doped SAM/PMMA layer coated glass substrate recorded under ultraviolet (≈360 nm) illumination. a,b) Reproduced with
permission.[52] Copyright 2016, AIP Publishing. c) Digital photograph of a PSC bearing the UV-coating when exposed to UV light. d) J–V curves of a highly
efficient PSC before and after coating with the optimized LDS fluoropolymeric layer (2 wt% V570). Dotted lines represent the reverse scan. e) Results of
the aging test on the three series of PSCs: Uncoated, front-coated, and front/back coated. c–e) Reproduced with permission.[53] Copyright 2016, American
Association for the Advancement of Science. f) Schematic configuration of SAED-based PSCs. g) Afterglow characteristics of SAED film. f,g) Reproduced
with permission.[58] Copyright 2017, Wiley-VCH. h) Top: A schematic on the stability test of PSCs with and without PiG plate; a PiG plate was placed between
UV light source and PSC. Bottom: Photos of PiG/PSC and only PSC under UV radiation: Emission of PiG was observed. i) IPCE without PiG and with
PiG. j) Stability test results of PSCs exposed to 365 nm light for 96 h without and with PiG. h–j) Reproduced with permission.[60] Copyright 2018, Elsevier.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (10 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 8.  a) Schematic illustration of the control PSC before and after UV irradiation. b) PSC with CsBr interface modification before and
after UV irradiation. a,b) Reproduced with permission.[67] Copyright 2016, The Royal Society of Chemistry. c) Transmittance of the vacuum-
evaporated 450 nm thick CsPbBr3 film. Inset: Crystal structure and photograph of the CsPbBr3 film. d) Normalized PCEs versus storage time
under UV light (365 nm, 100 mW cm−2) illumination in a N2 -filled glovebox: i) Unencapsulated control OSCs with various photoactive layers
(PTB7-Th:PC71BM, PBDB-T:ITIC, and PBDB-T-SF:IT-4F); ii) filtered bottom OSCs with various photoactive layers (PTB7-Th:PC71BM, PBDB-T:ITIC,
and PBDB-T-SF:IT-4F) in the CsPbBr3/organic four-terminal TSCs. iii) The whole four-terminal TSCs. c,d) Reproduced with permission.[69]
Copyright 2018, Wiley-VCH.

of radiation into current or voltage signal,[74] which war-
rants an imperative study about the stability of PSCs under
high-dose gamma-ray radiation. Huang et  al. reported very
stable PSCs with a p-i-n planar heterojunction structure of
glass/ITO/PTAA/perovskite/C60/BCP/Cu under radiation
of both gamma-ray and light illumination simultaneously
(Figure  9a,b).[13] Upon the irradiation of light and gamma-
ray with dose rate of 1.5 krad h−1, the PCE initially reduced
to 82% of the initial value during the first 5 h, which was the
initial light-induced burn-in in the usual sense,[75] and then it
remained stable up to about 1000 h (Figure 9c). Interestingly,
self-recovery of the device performance occurred after 1410 h
radiation test. A comparison of the J–V curve of the PSCs
before and after the radiation test was shown in Figure  9d,
where the Jsc showed serious attenuation. Tracking the cause
of this change, they found that the decreased Jsc was caused
by darken brown glass substrate after gamma-ray irradiation
for 1535 h (Figure 9e). The PSCs were shown to retain 96.8%
of their initial PCE under continuous radiation of gamma-ray
with an accumulated dose of 2.3 Mrad and light for 1535 h,
surpassing that of c-Si solar cells. The excellent stability of
PSCs benefits from the self-healing behavior to recover its
efficiency loss from the early degradation induced by gamma-
ray radiation.
Further, the influence of gamma rays with different doses
on functional layers in PSCs have also been investigated. Due
to 100–1000 Gy represents a typical stability benchmark for sat-
ellites working at low and middle equatorial orbits,[76] gamma
ray radiation of 150, 300, and 500  Gy doses were applied to
the Cs0.15MA0.10FA0.75Pb(Br0.17I0.83)3 perovskite absorber mate-
rial, electron transporting material (PC61BM), hole trans-
porting materials (PEDOT:PSS) and ITO glass substrate.[77]
It was shown that the dose up to 500  Gy did not damage the
PEDOT:PSS layer, however, radiation affected the performance
of the PC61BM layers significantly. Also, the radiation tolerance
of regular PSCs with a structure of glass/ITO/SnO2/Perovskite/
Spiro-OMeTAD/Ag under gamma rays with dose rate of 100,
200, and 500 krad s−1 were investigated.[78] The experimental
results showed that the most vulnerable parts of radiated
PSCs were the glass substrate and perovskite layer, which were
mainly attributed to the phase transition of perovskite films
and the color appearance of the glass substrate induced by the
radiation, deteriorating the perovskite film absorbance, and the
substrate transmittance.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (11 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 9.  a) Illustration of the device structure of the p-i-n PSCs. b) Schematic of the stability test system. c) Radiation stability of an encapsulated
perovskite device. d) J–V curves of the perovskite device before and after irradiation test. e) Pictures of devices (top) and ITO substrates (bottom)
before (right) and after (left) gamma-ray radiation. The radiation dose was 2.3 Mrad with duration time of 1535 h. a–e) Reproduced with permission.[13]
Copyright 2018, Wiley-VCH.

3.5. Other Rays and High-Energy Particles Resistance
Besides electron, proton, gamma ray, and ultraviolet ray in
space, there are other rays and high-energy particles such as:
X-ray and neutron. X-ray is a kind of electromagnetic radiation
with very short wavelength between ultraviolet and gamma
ray. And metal halide perovskite has been introduced into the
operation of semiconductor-based X-ray detectors.[79–82] Perov-
skite shows promising candidate used in X-ray detectors, some
research works have reported their applications in sensitive
X-ray detectors. Huang et al. reported perovskite single crystal
X-ray detector showing 16.4% detection efficiency at near
zero bias under radiation with continuum X-ray energy up to
50 keV.[79] Also, Park et al. reported an all-solution based syn-
thetic route to producing printable polycrystalline perovskite
with sharply faceted large grains, which can produce a clear
X-ray image of a hand phantom (Figure  10a,b).[83] For X-ray
radiation effect on PSCs, Hirose et  al. reported their study
about soft X-ray exposure effects on CH3NH3PbI3 film with an
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy time-dependent measure-
ment method under 1 × 10−7 Pa chamber (Figure 10c).[84] Their
analysis indicates compositional changes in CH3NH3PbI3 due
to the soft X-ray radiation, suggesting that CH3NH3I evapo-
rated and the residual elements remained as a form of PbI2.
The peak and area intensities decreased and disappeared
after the 50 h X-ray radiation. It is implied that atomic den-
sity of N atoms successively decreased at the surface. Also,
changes in I 3d2/5 decreased until 40 h radiation and then
saturated. A valence band spectrum of the films was meas-
ured to identify surface structure. After a long time radiation
of soft X-rays, relative intensity of the satellite peak increased,
whose resultant profile became the same one as that of PbI2
(Figure 10d).
Moreover, fast neutrons are secondary particles gener-
ated upon interaction of primary cosmic-rays (≈90% protons)
with the atmosphere and air/spacecraft shielding and com-
ponents.[85] It has been calculated that the ISS receives a dose
of ≈2.8  × 1011 neutrons cm−2 per year, which in fact represent
one of the most severe forms of radiation at aircraft altitudes.
Cacialli et  al. reported their study on fast neutron of PSCs.[46]
The device showed the remarkable resilience against one of the
most hazardous forms of radiation. Fast neutrons lead to per-
manent effects likely originating from atomic displacement in
the active material. Such irreversible worsening is alleviated by
the formation of neutron-induced shallow traps, which act as
dopants and contribute to the increase of open circuit voltage
and the decrease of leakage current in light + neutron radiated
devices (Figure 10e,f, Table 1).

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (12 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 10.  a) Illustration of an all-solution-processed digital X-ray detector based on metal halide perovskites. b) A hand phantom X-ray image obtained
from an MPC detector (using 100 kV p and 5 mGyair s−1 for 5 ms exposure, resulting in a dose of 25 µGyair and a bias voltage of 50 V). a,b) Reproduced
with permission.[83] Copyright 2017, Springer Nature. c) Schematic illustration of the structure of the tested multi-film stack PSC. The red-arrow indi-
cates the position of current X-ray irradiation. d) Observed valence band XPS spectra of CH3NH3PbI3 multi-film stack sample (after 0 h and 200 h X-ray
irradiation) and that of PbI2. c,d) Reproduced with permission.[84] Copyright 2016, IEEE. e) Evolution of the I–V characteristics under prolonged light-
soaking and f) light/neutron irradiation. e,f) Reproduced under the terms of the CC-BY 3.0 license.[46] Copyright 2019, The Royal Society of Chemistry.

4. Effect of the High Vacuum and Alternating
Temperature
4.1. High Vacuum with Light Illumination
In addition to the above radiation factors, high vacuum with
strong illumination is also an important feature of space
environment. Light-induced degradation is inevitable against
its real application as light absorber in solar cells.[86] Several
researchers have reported that sustained illumination caused
the decomposition of the perovskite films.[87,88] Moreover, the
perovskite material is a structurally soft material compared with
c-Si and III-V multi-junction compound (CdTe, GaAs, CIGS)
and would decompose by outgassing under high vacuum as
encountered in space. Therefore, a better understanding of
degradation mechanisms of PSCs under ultrahigh vacuum
(UHV) with illumination is of paramount importance for the
future space applications. Bao et  al. investigated the under-
lying degradation processes and mechanisms of three mixed
perovskite films with different cations, MAPb(I0.83Br0.17)3
(MA film), FA0.83MA0.17Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 (FAMA film), and
Cs0.1(FA0.83MA0.17)0.9Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 (CsFAMA film) under white-
light illumination in extreme environment of UHV (Figure 11a).[89]
The three kinds of mixed perovskite films showed different
degrees of degradation after 12 h light illumination in high
vacuum of 1  × 10−8  Torr. The white-light source had an inten-
sity of ≈434 W m−2. Their surface became uneven and rough,
creating a large number of cracks and huge pores (Figure  11c).
When continuous increasing illumination time from 12 to
24 h, the original morphologic features of MA film completely
disappeared. The FAMA and CsFAMA films were slower with a
particle deterioration compared with MA film in the same time,

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (13 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 11.  a) Diagrammatic sketch of the mixed cation perovskite films under white-light illumination in UHV. The white-light source has an intensity
of ≈434 W m−2 that is approximately equivalent to 0.43 times that of air mass 1.5G solar illumination. The base pressure of UHV is 1 × 10−8 Torr. Repro-
duced with permission.[89] Copyright 2018, Wiley-VCH. b) Schematics of i) red and green, ii) blue illumination light-activated degradation processes
in vacuum for CH3NH3PbI3. Reproduced with permission.[96] Copyright 2019, Wiley-VCH. c) Top-view SEM images of MA (➀–➂), FAMA (➃–➅), and
CsFAMA (➆–➈) perovskite films that were fresh prepared and degraded after 12 and 24 h illumination. Reproduced with permission.[89] Copyright 2018,
Wiley-VCH. d) Normalized efficiency of non-encapsulated PSCs with three different device structures. PSCs were kept at 1-sun illumination, 5 × 103 Pa,
and MPP conditions. e) T80 lifetime of the PSCs. d,e) Reproduced with permission.[97] Copyright 2020, Elsevier.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (14 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
in agreement with that the mixed cation could enhance the
stability of the perovskite film.[90,91] Correspondingly, the MA
film is easier to form gaseous products, likely NH3, HI, I2, and
desorb from the film surface under the extreme condition.[92–94]
The CsFAMA film showed the most stable against light illumi-
nation in UHV among these three kinds of films, attributed to
that the Cs could shrink the perovskite lattice and accumulate
on the film surface as a defense against light-induced degra-
dation.[95] What is more, the chemical and structural charac-
terizations of the chosen unstable MA perovskite film under
UHV and dark condition were performed. After 48 h, there
was neither obvious decomposition of the organic cation nor
of metallic Pb. This result further suggests that the perovskite
film does not undergo the strong degradation due to vacuum
and the light thus is one key factor during degradation. Further,
the stability of the perovskite films and solar cells under red,
green and blue (RGB) light illumination (The intensities of the
RGB light sources near the sample surface were ≈373 W m−2.)
in medium vacuum was investigated.[96] The degradation mech-
anisms of PSCs under UHV with illumination was shown in
Figure 10b. Under high vacuum with the weaker light, such as
the red and green, CH3NH3PbI3 decomposed into PbI2, NH3,
HI, and hydrocarbon complex. For blue light illumination at
the same time, PbI2 was further broken into metallic Pb and I2
(Figure 11b).[96]
Above studies have pointed out the perovskite films decom-
pose under UHV with illumination. However, when the films
are sandwiched in the stack of several layers to fabricate PSCs,
this degradation will be largely inhibited. A straightforward
explanation on vacuum and illumination-induced solar cell
degradation is proposed that relies on gas permeability of the
layers atop the perovskite layer and mobile ion-induced chem-
ical reactions at charge transporting layer and related inter-
faces.[97] Along this line, a robust PSC structure (ITO/PTAA/
perovskite/PCBM/ZnO/AZO/[Ni/Al grid]) was proposed that
effectively mitigated these degradation pathways, leading to a
device showing a projected T80 lifetime of 4750 h at its max-
imum power point condition, 1-sun illumination at 50 mbar
(Figure 11d,e).
4.2. Temperature Extremes and Thermal Cycling
Specific requirements for space solar cells are not limited to
high-energy charged particles and rays radiation but are also
directed to thermal stability. Space solar cells are exposed to
cyclic temperature changes. As is well known, PSCs exhibit
relatively low thermal stability (<150  °C (423.13 K)) affected by
the kinds of organic materials in addition to the intrinsic prop-
erty of perovskite unlike inorganic semiconductor solar cells
(Si, GaAs, CdTe, etc.), which are thermally highly stable.[98–101]
The perovskite materials undergo a temperature-dependent
structural phase transition.[102] In general, for MAPbI3, when
temperatures T < 163 K it is in the orthorhombic phase (a ≠ b ≠
c; α = β = γ = 90°) and when temperatures 163 K < T < 327.3 K
it remains in the tetragonal phase (a = b ≠ c; α = β = γ = 90°).
Beyond 327.3 K, MAPbI3 forms a cubic phase (a = b = c; α = β =
γ  = 90°) (Figure  12a).[103] Due to the existence of phase transi-
tion, the optical properties of perovskite are bound to change
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (15 of 22)
www.advmat.de
in a larger temperature range. The onset of the optical absorp-
tion moves to higher energies with increase in temperature for
the tetragonal and orthorhombic phases of MAPbI3 perovskite
material (Figure  12b,c). Strong excitonic absorption features
dominate the optical absorption edge and become even more
pronounced at lower temperatures.[103]
As for temperature, it not only affects the physical and
chemical properties of materials but also influences the charge
generation, recombination, and transport in devices.[99,103–105]
Understanding how temperature affects the charge-carrier
dynamics of perovskite is therefore essential, especially consid-
ering that the efficiency of semiconductor solar cells is known
to decrease as temperature increase. For example, the charge-
carrier recombination dynamics, mobility, and diffusion length
are temperature-dependent in the MAPbI3 film in the tempera-
ture range from 8 to 370 K.[99,106] Profound change in the opto-
electronic properties of the perovskite material are observed
across the two structure phase transitions occurring at 160 and
310 K. Drude-like terahertz photoconductivity spectra at all tem-
peratures above 80 K suggest that charge localization effects
are absent in this range. The mono-molecular charge-carrier
recombination rate generally increases with rising tempera-
ture.[99] Also, the ion migration is sensitive to temperature.[107]
What’s more, the band gap and its temperature dependence
belong to the most fundamental properties of semiconduc-
tors.[100] The bandgaps of perovskite semiconductors can change
substantially with temperature due to modifications of the
band energies caused by electron-phonon interactions and/or
by thermal expansion of the lattice from phase transitions.[108]
The temperature-dependent EQE measurements and extract
the effective bandgap energy Eg* of the absorber from the sub-
bandgap changes due to phase transitions on the photovoltaic
performance (Figure 12d). At room temperature, Eg* = 1.58 eV,
which is in good agreement with the MAPbI3 bandgap energy
of 1.55  eV. The minimum Eg* occurring at T  < 160 k reflects
a tetragonal-to-orthorhombic phase transition,[109] which can
be attributed to the increase in the energy of electrons in the
materials. Temperature-dependent electron-phonon interaction
effectively determines semiconductor’s bang gaps.
Based on the understanding of these physical and chemical
properties of perovskite films in low temperature, researchers
began to focus on the performance of devices working at low
temperature.[101,109–111] When employing the ethylene vinyl ace-
tate-based encapsulant, PSCs maintain over 90% of the initial
performance after 200 temperature cycles between −40 and
85 °C for terrestrial use.[112] However, an even more severe tem-
perature range should be tested for space applications because
the temperature of spacecraft under direct sunlight can be as
high as 100–130 °C (373–403 K), while the temperature is lower
than −200–150 °C (73–123 K) without sunlight. Previous studies
found that PSCs could work at low temperature.[110,111,113–115] But
the photovoltaic performance degraded with a decrease in tem-
perature from 300 to 80 K.[101] As mentioned above, temperature
not only affects the physical and chemical properties of mate-
rials but also influences the charge generation, recombination,
and transport in devices. Among the possible factors causing
this attenuation at low temperature are: i) A charge injection
barrier at the electrode interface, ii) a charge separation bar-
rier at ETL/perovskite interface, and iii) unbalanced charge
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 12.  a) Crystal structure of MAPbI3 in orthorhombic and tetragonal phases. UV–vis absorption spectra of MAPbI3 thin film at different
temperatures in the b) tetragonal and c) orthorhombic phases. Black solid line is the fit to the experimental absorption spectra (scatter points).
a–c) Reproduced with permission.[103] Copyright 2016, American Chemical Society. d) Plot of (E*EQE)2 versus E, with the inset showing the corresponding
variation of Eg* with T. Reproduced with permission.[109] Copyright 2016, Wiley-VCH. e) J–V curves of the FAMACs-based perovskite solar cell at different
temperatures from 300 to 130 K, with a step of 10 K. Reproduced with permission.[117] Copyright 2020, Elsevier. f) Real-time environmental parameters:
i) temperature variation; ii) light intensity variation. Reproduced with permission.[23] Copyright 2019, Springer Nature.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (16 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
transport in the device.[111,113–115] With the progress of funda-
mental understanding, several reports developed high-quality
electron transport materials to improve charge extraction pro-
cesses of PSCs in colder environment.[113,116] The improved
photovoltaic performance of 25.2% was obtained in FAMACs-
based PSCs at 220 K and the device showed a PCE of 22.4%
with a Voc of 1.173 V, a Jsc of 24.15 mA cm−2, and a FF of 78.9%
at room temperature (300 K).[117] Remarkably, the phase tran-
sition and lattice distortion promoted the temperature-induced
elimination of intrinsic defects, which dramatically suppressed
the non-radiative recombination and improved the device per-
formance from 300 to 220 K (Figure 12e).
It is worth mentioning that the temperature of spacecraft
under direct sunlight can be as high as 100–130 °C, so the space
photovoltaics actually work at high temperature, rather than at
low temperature. Zhu et  al. have acquired the real-time tem-
perature of the devices in the whole practical work process in
near space, and the temperature continuously increased from
1.9 to 69.6 °C under illumination during a flight in near space
(Figure 12f).[23] It is desirable to track the efficiency of PSCs in a
more comprehensive and real space environment.
5. Space Flight Experiments of Perovskite Solar Cells
To promote the space applications of PSCs, a few groups have
already investigated the effects of various extreme space envi-
ronments on the perovskite films and PSC’s performance.
Previous laboratory tests targeted at the performance of PSCs
under limited simulated space environmental conditions due
to a complete set of space environment is difficult to achieve
in terrestrial conditions. Those studies show quite promising
results in terms of materials stability and performance attenu-
ation. Therefore, it is desirable to track the behavior of PSCs in
a more comprehensive and real space environment to assess
the full set of environmental parameters of interest at the same
time. To date, only three pioneering experiments have been car-
ried out under real space conditions: In situ demonstration of
PSCs’ functionality and power generation by Manca et  al. in
2018,[22] Zhu et  al. in 2019,[23] and Muller-Buschbaum et  al. in
2020,[118] respectively.
In these space experiments, PSCs were loaded on spacecraft
such as the high-altitude balloon,[22,23] the suborbital rocket.[118]
The first flight experiment reached an altitude of 32  km
(roughly 3 times higher than commercial aviation), as shown
in Figure  13a. And the performance of the devices during
flight was tracked to obtain the evolution of the maximum
power point with time and against temperature.[22] PSCs with
an active area of 0.134 cm2 based on the MAPbI3 film survived
3 h of stratospheric flight. This exploratory outdoor degradation
study in near-space environment confirms that PSCs are viable
complements for space solar energy harvesting. Zhu and his
coworkers sent their mixed-cation PSCs into near space through
a high-altitude balloon at an altitude of 35 km (Figure 13c-i).[23]
Two kinds of regular TiO2 mesoporous large-area PSCs (active
area of 1.00 cm2) were investigated (Figure  13c-iv,c-v). The
device based on FA0.81MA0.10Cs0.04PbI0.55Br0.40 retained 95.19%
of its initial PCE during the 2 h test under AM0 illumination.
In addition, they adapted the UV filter to guarantee device
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (17 of 22)
www.advmat.de
stability. Following these two pioneering works, a space flight
experiment of PSCs on board of a rocket flight was carried out
by Muller-Buschbaum et al. in 2020[118] (Figure 13b). The rocket
reached the apogee in 239 km altitude and devices performance
was tracked with the temperature ranging from 30 to 60  °C
in a main measurement time of around 6  min. These space
flight experiments of PSCs become valuable intermediate sci-
entific steps on the ladder toward space applications. However,
these pioneer exploits are limited in low device efficiency and
relatively short flight time, which are also technical issues to be
solved in the future.
6. Challenges
PSCs hold great promise for space applications. Although
striking progress has been made in terms of material stability
and performance evolution of PSCs under space extreme envi-
ronments, there are several key challenges need to be addressed
to obtain pragmatic PSCs for space applications:
1) Understand the physical mechanism of PSCs under space
extreme environments. High-energy particles and rays radia-
tion produce atomic displacements in semiconductor mate-
rials, as a result of atomic displacements, lattice defects such
as vacancies, interstitials, complex defects (di-vacancy, vacancy-
impurity pair, interstitial-impurity pair, etc.) are generated.
Lattice defects that act as recombination centers or majority-
and minority-carrier trapping centers cause a decrease in the
output power of PSCs. Not only the degradation mechanism
of individual layers is crucial but the performance attenuation
mechanisms in complete device also need to be analyzed. The
self-healing behavior of PSC under radiation needs to be fur-
ther studied. An understanding of physical mechanism of PSCs
under space extreme environments is important as an aid to
minimize radiation damage.
2) Clarify the comprehensive impacts of space environment
on PSCs. Differing from conventional conditions, extreme
space environments put a rigorous test on PSCs, which had
been summarized in this review, including high vacuum, alter-
nating temperature, strong UV light, and high-energy radia-
tion. For the high vacuum, it was proved that perovskite films
tended to decompose under UHV with illumination. For the
alternating temperature, the temperature became as high as
100–130  °C (373–403 K) during devices operation under sun-
light, while −200–−150  °C (73–123 K) during downtime (i.e.,
no sunlight). Furthermore, unencapsulated devices could cause
serious degradation under UV-light and high-energy radiations.
There were various combined factors that affecting PSCs in
space. Since a complete set of simulation for space environ-
ment was difficult to achieve in terrestrial conditions, these
factors were studied separately in previous laboratory tests,
therefore we still know little about the combined effects on the
PSCs.
3) Satisfy the specific requirements of space photovoltaics.
Space applications of solar cells needs to meet a number
of strict requirements. First, like other predominant space
photovoltaic technologies, PSCs must provide effective power
on satellites in the future because the daily operation depends
critically on the space cells. Second, PSCs must have minimum
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Figure 13.  a) Solar cells mounting structure, and schematics of the flight altitude. The experiment counted 4 panels holding solar panels. Reproduced
with permission.[22] Copyright 2018, Elsevier. b) Schematic overview of the MAPHEUS-8 sounding rocket flight in the foreground on the left, the
experimental setup OHSCIS, highlighted in gold, was part of the payload. Eight symmetrically arranged hatches each contained one organic (green)
and one perovskite (brown) solar cell module (for details see text). Neighboring hatches contained different cell types indicated in different colors.
The background showed the suborbital parabolic flight trajectory with the apogee reaching into altitudes common for LEO satellites. Reproduced
with permission.[118] Copyright 2020, Elsevier. c) i) Representative schematic showing the relative position of the sun, the high-altitude balloon and
the Earth; ii) photograph of launch site; iii) photograph of the high-altitude balloon with a pod in near space; iv) device configuration; v) unit module
(the large-area perovskite solar cell was soldered on the integrated circuit board). Reproduced with permission.[23] Copyright 2019, Springer Nature.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (18 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
weight, in order to minimize the launch load. Flexible PSCs
have shown a specific power over 20 W/g, which is a unique
advantage of PSCs. Third, PSCs should be robust and highly
reliable when exposed to space extreme environments. There-
fore, PSCs for space applications need to meet the specific
requirements: High performance, high specific power, and
long-term stability. And the balance among the specific require-
ments should be considered. This remains a major challenge in
the short term.
7. Summary and Future Perspective
In this review, we have reviewed the recent breakthroughs of
PSCs under extreme environments, including research on
perovskites in extreme environments and actual flight experi-
ments of PSCs in space. The stability of perovskite materials
is found to be related to space radiation type and dose. While
PSCs exhibit excellent radiation resistance under different
space conditions. Specific requirements for PSCs in space are
also summarized. Compared with other conventional space
photovoltaics, recent breakthroughs have put PSCs for space
applications on an infancy but fast-developing stage. However,
there are still several steps away to overcome these challenges
from the pragmatic space applications.
1) Select and screen specific metal halide perovskites suit-
able for space applications. Metal halide perovskites are proved
to be designable materials with various composition elements
and structures. For a long time, the extreme condition perfor-
mance research of PSCs are distributed in various material sys-
tems and reported separately. Systematic comparison, selection,
and optimization of perovskite materials, such as all-inorganic
perovskite, low-dimensional perovskite and double perovskite,
should be introduced for PSCs in space.
2) Construct potential device structure suitable for space
applications. TSC combining perovskites with other predomi-
nant photovoltaic technologies, could improve the overall effi-
ciency. Since PSCs have shown good radiation resistance, TSC
with perovskite as the first section (perovskite/Si, perovskite/
Cu2InGaSe4, etc.) will have great potential for space applica-
tions. On the other hand, the lighter the photovoltaic appli-
cations are, the greater load space-crafts can carry, which
makes high specific power an important issue for space solar
cells. PSCs with flexible substrate (PET, PEN, PI, Parylene,
Epoxy, etc.) have a higher specific power than rigid substrates.
Moreover, flexible solar cells could be adapted to any kind of
shape and easy to deploy, showing a good potential for space
applications.
3) Develop the key supporting materials suitable for space
applications. Space solar cells are subject to high-energy radia-
tion, leading to severe degradation of the output performance.
To prevent this, adding a thin protective layer (as an example,
special glass that typically up to hundreds of microns thick)
could screen the solar cells from radiation. The strong UV light
could be prevented by appropriate material though the same
way. Taking a step further, utilizing instead of blocking high-
energy radiation is a better choice. Photo-luminescent mate-
rials, including down-conversion materials, could turn harmful
high-energy photons available for photovoltaics.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (19 of 22)
www.advmat.de
4) Develop comprehensive simulated space environment
suitable for test. Since the fact that actual space environmental
experiments are high-professional, difficult and expensive,
simulated space environmental conditions at laboratory will be
main tools for the research of PSCs in space. However, com-
bined effects of multiple factors should be studied together
for better understanding and realization of the stability under
extreme conditions.
5) Launch more actual space flight experiments. To date, only
three pioneer experiments have been carried out under real
space conditions with the in-situ demonstration of PSCs’ func-
tionality. Terrestrial simulation could not completely replace
actual flight experiment in complex space environments. With
more near-space and deep-space mission, better understanding
and realization of PSC space applications could be expected.
As a promising candidate of high-performance and low-cost
next generation photovoltaic devices, PSCs have set off a boom
in terrestrial photovoltaic market, attracting many companies
to promote their industrialization. With the rapid development
of low-cost large amount networked satellites for potential 6G
communications, high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles and
balloons, and deep-space mission (for example, Mars explora-
tion), PSCs may usher in the best opportunity for their space
applications.
Acknowledgements
Y.T., J.W., and G.X. contributed equally to this work. This work was
funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62004165
and 61722501), the Scientific Experimental System in Near Space of
Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA17020304), the Natural Science
Foundation of Shaanxi Province, China (2020JQ-195), the Joint
Research Funds of Department of Science & Technology of Shaanxi
Province and Northwestern Polytechnical University (2020GXLH-Z-
007), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(31020190QD031), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
(BX20190018).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
perovskite solar cells, space photovoltaic technologies, space solar cells,
stability of perovskite under strong radiation
Received: September 25, 2020
Revised: November 5, 2020
Published online:
[1] M. Liu, M. B. Johnston, H. J. Snaith, Nature 2013, 501, 395.
[2] Q.  Dong, Y.  Fang, Y.  Shao, P.  Mulligan, J.  Qiu, L.  Cao, J.  Huang,
Science 2015, 347, 967.
[3] L.  Shen, Y.  Fang, D.  Wang, Y.  Bai, Y.  Deng, M.  Wang, Y.  Lu,
J. Huang, Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 10794.
[4] V.  D’Innocenzo, G.  Grancini, M. J.  Alcocer, A. R.  Kandada,
S. D. Stranks, M. M. Lee, G. Lanzani, H. J. Snaith, Nat. Commun.
2014, 5, 3586.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[5] D. Li, L. Song, Y. Chen, W. Huang, Adv. Sci. 2019, 7, 1901397.
[6] D. Luo, R. Su, W. Zhang, Q. Gong, R. Zhu, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2020,
5, 44.
[7] N. J. Jeon, J. H. Noh, Y. C. Kim, W. S. Yang, S. Ryu, S. I. Seok, Nat.
Mater. 2014, 13, 897.
[8] Y. Zhang, Y. Tu, X. Yang, R. Su, W. Yang, M. Yu, Y. Wang, W. Huang,
Q. Gong, R. Zhu, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 24905.
[9] W. Zhang, G. E. Eperon, H. J. Snaith, Nat. Energy 2016, 1, 16048.
[10] Y. Tu, J. Wu, M. Zheng, J. Huo, P. Zhou, Z. Lan, J. Lin, M. Huang,
Nanoscale 2015, 7, 20539.
[11] D. P.  McMeekin, S.  Mahesh, N. K.  Noel, M. T.  Klug, J.  Lim,
J. H.  Warby, J. M.  Ball, L. M.  Herz, M. B.  Johnston, H. J.  Snaith,
Joule 2019, 3, 387.
[12] S. D.  Stranks, G. E.  Eperon, G.  Grancini, C.  Menelaou,
M. J.  Alcocer, T.  Leijtens, L. M.  Herz, A.  Petrozza, H. J.  Snaith,
Science 2013, 342, 341.
[13] S.  Yang, Z.  Xu, S.  Xue, P.  Kandlakunta, L.  Cao, J.  Huang, Adv.
Mater. 2019, 31, 1805547.
[14] L. Chao, Y. Xia, B. Li, G. Xing, Y. Chen, W. Huang, Chem 2019, 5,
995.
[15] C.  Tian, G.  Betancourt-Solis, Z.  Nan, K.  Liu, K.  Lin, J.  Lu, L.  Xie,
L.  Echegoyen, Z.  Wei, Sci. Bull. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scib.2020.08.041
[16] N.  Aristidou, I.  Sanchez-Molina, T.  Chotchuangchutchaval,
M.  Brown, L.  Martinez, T.  Rath, S. A.  Haque, Angew. Chem., Int.
Ed. Engl. 2015, 54, 8208.
[17] M.  Kaltenbrunner, G.  Adam, E. D.  Glowacki, M.  Drack,
R.  Schwodiauer, L.  Leonat, D. H.  Apaydin, H.  Groiss,
M. C. Scharber, M. S. White, N. S. Sariciftci, S. Bauer, Nat. Mater.
2015, 14, 1032.
[18] Y. Zheng, R. Su, Z. Xu, D. Luo, H. Dong, B. Jiao, Z. Wu, Q. Gong,
R. Zhu, Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 1255.
[19] A.  Romeo, D. L.  Bätzner, W.  Hajdas, H.  Zogg, A. N.  Tiwari, pre-
sented at 17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conf. and Exhibi-
tion, Munich, Germany, October 2001.
[20] M. Yamaguchi, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2001, 68, 31.
[21] Y.  Miyazawa, M.  Ikegami, T.  Miyasaka, T.  Ohshima, K.  Hirose, in
2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (PVSC), 2015.
[22] I.  Cardinaletti, T.  Vangerven, S.  Nagels, R.  Cornelissen,
D.  Schreurs, J.  Hruby, J.  Vodnik, D.  Devisscher, J.  Kesters,
J.  D’Haen, A.  Franquet, V.  Spampinato, T.  Conard, W.  Maes,
W. Deferme, J. V. Manca, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 182, 121.
[23] Y.  Tu, G.  Xu, X.  Yang, Y.  Zhang, Z.  Li, R.  Su, D.  Luo, W.  Yang,
Y.  Miao, R.  Cai, L.  Jiang, X.  Du, Y.  Yang, Q.  Liu, Y.  Gao, S.  Zhao,
W. Huang, Q. Gong, R. Zhu, Sci. China: Phys., Mech. Astron. 2019,
62, 974221.
[24] B.  Mukherjee, X.  Wu, T.  Maczka, T.  Kwan, Y.  Huang, V.  Mares,
Radiat. Meas. 2016, 94, 65.
[25] D.  Yu, P.  Wang, F.  Cao, Y.  Gu, J.  Liu, Z.  Han, B.  Huang, Y.  Zou,
X. Xu, H. Zeng, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3395.
[26] E. R. Benton, E. V. Benton, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect.
B 2001, 184, 255.
[27] R. Hoheisel, D. Wilt, D. Scheiman, P. Jenkins, R. Walters, in Photo-
voltaic Specialist Conf., 2014.
[28] J. R. Woodyard, G. A. Landis, Sol. Cells 1991, 31, 297.
[29] R.  Thirsk, A.  Kuipers, C.  Mukai, D.  Williams, Can. Med. Assoc. J.
2009, 180, 1216.
[30] A. W. Bett, S. P. Philipps, S. Essig, S. Heckelmann, F. Dimroth, in
28th EU-PVSEC, 2013.
[31] N. J.  Mohr, J. J.  Schermer, M. A. J.  Huijbregts, A.  Meijer,
L. Reijnders, Prog. Photovoltaics 2007, 15, 163.
[32] P. A. Iles, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2001, 68, 1.
[33] J.  Barbé, D.  Hughes, Z.  Wei, A.  Pockett, H. K. H.  Lee,
K. C.  Heasman, M. J.  Carnie, T. M.  Watson, W. C.  Tsoi, Sol. RRL
2019, 3, 1900219.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (20 of 22)
www.advmat.de
[34] J. S.  Huang, M. D.  Kelzenberg, P.  Espinet-González, C.  Mann,
H. A.  Atwater, in 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conf.
(PVSC), 2017.
[35] Y. Miyazawa, M. Ikegami, H.-W. Chen, T. Ohshima, M. Imaizumi,
K. Hirose, T. Miyasaka, iScience 2018, 2, 148.
[36] Z.  Song, C.  Li, C.  Chen, J.  McNatt, W.  Yoon, D.  Scheiman,
P. P. Jenkins, R. J. Ellingson, M. J. Heben, Y. Yan, J. Phys. Chem. C
2019, 124, 1330.
[37] J.  Ran, O. O.  Dyck, X.  Wang, B.  Yang, D. B.  Geohegan, K.  Xiao,
Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903191.
[38] M. Imaizumi, T. Nakamura, T. Takamoto, T. Ohshima, M. Tajima,
Prog. Photovoltaics 2017, 25, 161.
[39] D. Mottl, R. A. Nymmik, Adv. Space Res. 2003, 32, 2349.
[40] H.-C.  Neitzert, P.  Spinillo, S.  Bellone, G.-D.  Licciardi, M.  Tucci,
F.  Roca, L.  Gialanella, M.  Romano, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
2004, 83, 435.
[41] A.  Jasenek, U.  Rau, K.  Weinert, H. W.  Schock, J. H.  Werner, in
World Conf. on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003.
[42] F.  Lang, N. H.  Nickel, J.  Bundesmann, S.  Seidel, A.  Denker,
S. Albrecht, V. V. Brus, J. Rappich, B. Rech, G. Landi, H. C. Neitzert,
Adv. Mater. 2016, 28, 8726.
[43] T. Markvart, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron. 1990, 1, 1.
[44] F. Lang, M. Jošt, J. Bundesmann, A. Denker, S. Albrecht, G. Landi,
H.-C. Neitzert, J. Rappich, N. H. Nickel, Energy Environ. Sci. 2019,
12, 1634.
[45] V. V. Brus, F. Lang, J. Bundesmann, S. Seidel, A. Denker, B. Rech,
G.  Landi, H. C.  Neitzert, J.  Rappich, N. H.  Nickel, Adv. Electron.
Mater. 2017, 3, 1600438.
[46] G. M.  Paternò, V.  Robbiano, L.  Santarelli, A.  Zampetti,
C. Cazzaniga, V. G. Sakai, F. Cacialli, Sustainable Energy Fuels 2019,
3, 2561.
[47] S.  Kanaya, G. M.  Kim, M.  Ikegami, T.  Miyasaka, K.  Suzuki,
Y.  Miyazawa, H.  Toyota, K.  Osonoe, T.  Yamamoto, K.  Hirose,
J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 10, 6990.
[48] T. A.  Berhe, W.  Su, C.  Chen, C.  Pan, J.  Cheng, H.  Chen, M.  Tsai,
L. Chen, A. A. Dubale, B. Hwang, Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 323.
[49] J. Yang, Q. Bao, L. Shen, L. Ding, Nano Energy 2020, 76, 105019.
[50] F.  Bella, G.  Griffini, M.  Gerosa, S.  Turri, R. M.  Bongiovanni,
J. Power Sources 2015, 283, 195.
[51] T. Trupke, M. A. Green, P. Wurfel, J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 92, 1668.
[52] J.  Cui, P.  Li, Z.  Chen, K.  Cao, D.  Li, J.  Han, Y.  Shen, M.  Peng,
Y. Q. Fu, M. Wang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2016, 109, 171103.
[53] F.  Bella, G.  Griffini, J.  Correabaena, G.  Saracco, M.  Gratzel,
A. Hagfeldt, S. Turri, C. Gerbaldi, Science 2016, 354, 203.
[54] J. Roh, H. Yu, J. Jang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 19847.
[55] H. S. Hafez, M. Saif, M. Abdelmottaleb, J. Power Sources 2011, 196,
5792.
[56] N.  Chander, A. F.  Khan, P. S.  Chandrasekhar, E.  Thouti,
S. K.  Swami, V.  Dutta, V. K.  Komarala, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105,
033904.
[57] Y.  Tu, X.  Yang, R.  Su, D.  Luo, Y.  Cao, L.  Zhao, T.  Liu, W.  Yang,
Y. Zhang, Z. Xu, Q. Liu, J. Wu, Q. Gong, F. Mo, R. Zhu, Adv. Mater.
2018, 30, 1805085.
[58] C.  Chen, H.  Li, J.  Jin, X.  Chen, Y.  Cheng, Y.  Zheng, D.  Liu, L.  Xu,
H. Song, Q. Dai, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 1700758.
[59] H. Yamamoto, T. Matsuzawa, J. Lumin. 1997, 72, 287.
[60] H.-S.  Roh, G. S.  Han, S.  Lee, S.  Kim, S.  Choi, C.  Yoon, J.-K.  Lee,
J. Power Sources 2018, 389, 135.
[61] S. S. Shin, E. J. Yeom, W. S. Yang, S. Hur, M. G. Kim, J. Im, J. Seo,
J. H. Noh, S. I. Seok, Science 2017, 356, 167.
[62] F. Wan, X. Qiu, H. Chen, Y. Liu, H. Xie, J. Shi, H. Huang, Y. Yuan,
Y. Gao, C. Zhou, Org. Electron. 2018, 59, 184.
[63] T.-P.  Chen, C.-W.  Lin, S.-S.  Li, Y.-H.  Tsai, C.-Y.  Wen,
W. J.  Lin, F.-M.  Hsiao, Y.-P.  Chiu, K.  Tsukagoshi, M.  Osada,
T. Sasaki, C.-W. Chen, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1701722.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[64] H.  Zhang, H.  Wang, H.  Zhu, C.-C.  Chueh, W.  Chen, S.  Yang,
A. K. Y. Jen, Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1702762.
[65] Y.  Sun, X.  Fang, Z.  Ma, L.  Xu, Y.  Lu, Q.  Yu, N.  Yuan, J.  Ding, J.
Mater. Chem. C 2017, 5, 8682.
[66] W. Li, J. Li, G. Niu, L. Wang, J. Mater. Chem. A 2016, 4, 11688.
[67] W.  Li, W.  Zhang, S. V.  Reenen, R. J.  Sutton, J.  Fan,
A. A.  Haghighirad, M. B.  Johnston, L.  Wang, H. J.  Snaith, Energy
Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 490.
[68] M.  Ouafi, B.  Jaber, L.  Atourki, R.  Bekkari, L.  Laânab, J. Alloys
Compd. 2018, 746, 391.
[69] W. Chen, J. Zhang, G. Xu, R. Xue, Y. Li, Y. Zhou, J. Hou, Y. Li, Adv.
Mater. 2018, 30, 1800855.
[70] W. Chen, H. Chen, G. Xu, R. Xue, S. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Li, Joule 2019,
3, 191.
[71] S. C. Chen, S. Zhang, Q. Zheng, Sci. China Mater. 2020, 63, 719.
[72] S. C. Chen, D. Wang, Q. Zheng, Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 2000321.
[73] H.  Wei, D.  Desantis, W.  Wei, Y.  Deng, D.  Guo, T. J.  Savenije,
L. Cao, J. Huang, Nat. Mater. 2017, 16, 826.
[74] S. Yang, W. Liu, Y. Han, Z. Liu, W. Zhao, C. Duan, Y. Che, H. Gu,
Y. Li, S. Liu, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 2002882.
[75] Z.  Wang, Q.  Lin, B.  Wenger, M. G.  Christoforo, Y.-H.  Lin,
M. T.  Klug, M. B.  Johnston, L. M.  Herz, H. J.  Snaith, Nat. Energy
2018, 3, 855.
[76] E. J. Daly, G. Drolshagen, A. Hilgers, H. D. R. Evans, presented at
Environment Modelling for Space-Based Applications Symp. Proc.,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, September 1996.
[77] A. G.  Boldyreva, A. F.  Akbulatov, S. A.  Tsarev, S. Y.  Luchkin,
I. S.  Zhidkov, E. Z.  Kurmaev, K. J.  Stevenson, V. G.  Petrov,
P. A. Troshin, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 10, 813.
[78] K.  Yang, K.  Huang, X.  Li, S.  Zheng, P.  Hou, J.  Wang, H.  Guo,
H. Song, B. Li, H. Li, B. Liu, X. Zhong, J. Yang, Org. Electron. 2019,
71, 79.
[79] H.  Wei, Y.  Fang, P.  Mulligan, W.  Chuirazzi, H.-H.  Fang, C.  Wang,
B. R.  Ecker, Y.  Gao, M. A.  Loi, L.  Cao, J.  Huang, Nat. Photonics
2016, 10, 333.
[80] W. Pan, H. Wu, J. Luo, Z. Deng, C. Ge, C. Chen, X. Jiang, W.-J. Yin,
G. Niu, L. Zhu, L. Yin, Y. Zhou, Q. Xie, X. Ke, M. Sui, J. Tang, Nat.
Photonics 2017, 11, 726.
[81] B.  Yang, W.  Pan, H.  Wu, G.  Niu, J. H.  Yuan, K. H.  Xue, L.  Yin,
X. Du, X. S. Miao, X. Yang, Q. Xie, J. Tang, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10,
1989.
[82] J.  Zhao, L.  Zhao, Y.  Deng, X.  Xiao, Z.  Ni, S.  Xu, J.  Huang, Nat.
Photonics 2020, 14, 612.
[83] Y. C. Kim, K. H. Kim, D. Y. Son, D. N. Jeong, J. Y. Seo, Y. S. Choi,
I. T. Han, S. Y. Lee, N. G. Park, Nature 2017, 550, 87.
[84] K.  Motoki, Y.  Miyazawa, D.  Kobayashi, M.  Ikegami, K.  Hirose, in
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
(PVSC), Portland, OR, USA 2016, pp. 1657–1660.
[85] P. Goldhagen, J. Clem, J. Wilson, Adv. Space Res. 2003, 32, 35.
[86] B. R. Ecker, C. Wang, H. Wei, Y. Yuan, J. Huang, Y. Gao, Adv. Mater.
Interfaces 2018, 5, 1801206.
[87] W.  Tress, K.  Domanski, B.  Carlsen, A.  Agarwalla, E. A.  Alharbi,
M. Graetzel, A. Hagfeldt, Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 568.
[88] B.  Chen, J.  Song, X.  Dai, Y.  Liu, P. N.  Rudd, X.  Hong, J.  Huang,
Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1902413.
[89] J.  Yang, Q.  Hong, Z.  Yuan, R.  Xu, X.  Guo, S.  Xiong, X.  Liu,
S.  Braun, Y.  Li, J.  Tang, C.  Duan, M.  Fahlman, Q.  Bao, Adv. Opt.
Mater. 2018, 6, 1800262.
[90] J.  Xiao, L.  Liu, D.  Zhang, N.  De Marco, J.  Lee, O.  Lin, Q.  Chen,
Y. Yang, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 1700491.
Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (21 of 22)
www.advmat.de
[91] C.  Yi, J.  Luo, S.  Meloni, A.  Boziki, N.  Ashari-Astani, C.  Graetzel,
S. M.  Zakeeruddin, U.  Rothlisberger, M.  Gratzel, Energy Environ.
Sci. 2016, 9, 656.
[92] Q.-M.  Hong, R.-P.  Xu, T.-Y.  Jin, J.-X.  Tang, Y.-Q.  Li, Org. Electron.
2019, 67, 19.
[93] S.  Chen, X.  Du, D.  Lin, F.  Xie, W.  Xie, L.  Gong, W.  Zhang,
P. Liu, J. Chen, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 2018, 229, 108.
[94] L.  Chao, T.  Niu, H.  Gu, Y.  Yang, Q.  Wei, Y.  Xia, W.  Hui, S.  Zuo,
Z.  Zhu, C.  Pei, X.  Li, J.  Zhang, J.  Fang, G.  Xing, H.  Li, X.  Huang,
X. Gao, C. Ran, L. Song, L. Fu, Y. Chen, W. Huang, Research 2020,
2020, 2616345.
[95] Y. Hu, M. F. Ayguler, M. L. Petrus, T. Bein, P. Docampo, ACS Energy
Lett. 2017, 2, 2212.
[96] W.  Xiao, J.  Yang, S.  Xiong, D.  Li, Y.  Li, J.  Tang, C.  Duan, Q.  Bao,
Sol. RRL 2020, 4, 1900394.
[97] Y. Jiang, S.-C. Yang, Q. Jeangros, S. Pisoni, T. Moser, S. Buecheler,
A. N. Tiwari, F. Fu, Joule 2020, 4, 1087.
[98] C. C.  Stoumpos, C. D.  Malliakas, M. G.  Kanatzidis, Inorg. Chem.
2013, 52, 9019.
[99] R. L. Milot, G. E. Eperon, H. J. Snaith, M. B. Johnston, L. M. Herz,
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2015, 25, 6218.
[100] T.  Dittrich, C.  Awino, P.  Prajongtat, B.  Rech, M. C.  Lux-Steiner, J.
Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 23968.
[101] H.  Zhang, X.  Qiao, Y.  Shen, T.  Moehl, S. M.  Zakeeruddin,
M. Grätzel, M. Wang, J. Mater. Chem. A 2015, 3, 11762.
[102] W. A. Saidi, J. J. Choi, J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 145, 144702.
[103] S. Singh, C. Li, F. Panzer, K. L. Narasimhan, A. Graeser, T. P. Gujar,
A. Köhler, M. Thelakkat, S. Huettner, D. Kabra, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.
2016, 7, 3014.
[104] M. V.  Khenkin, D. V.  Amasev, S. A.  Kozyukhin, A. V.  Sadovnikov,
E. A. Katz, A. G. Kazanskii, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2017, 110, 222107.
[105] M. L. De Giorgi, A. Perulli, N. Yantara, P. P. Boix, M. Anni, J. Phys.
Chem. C 2017, 121, 14772.
[106] C. L.  Davies, J.  Borchert, C. Q.  Xia, R. L.  Milot, H.  Kraus,
M. B. Johnston, L. M. Herz, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 4502.
[107] Y. Yuan, J. Huang, Acc. Chem. Res. 2016, 49, 286.
[108] C.  Yu, Z.  Chen, J. J.  Wang, W.  Pfenninger, N.  Vockic, J.  Kenney,
K. Shum, J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 110, 063526.
[109] W. L.  Leong, Z.-E.  Ooi, D.  Sabba, C.  Yi, S. M.  Zakeeruddin,
M.  Graetzel, J. M.  Gordon, E. A.  Katz, N.  Mathews, Adv. Mater.
2016, 28, 2439.
[110] H. Zhang, X. Qiao, Y. Shen, M. Wang, J. Energy Chem. 2015, 24, 729.
[111] T. J.  Jacobsson, W.  Tress, J.-P.  Correa-Baena, T.  Edvinsson,
A. Hagfeldt, J. Phys. Chem. C 2016, 120, 11382.
[112] R.  Cheacharoen, N.  Rolston, D.  Harwood, K. A.  Bush,
R. H. Dauskardt, M. D. McGehee, Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 144.
[113] S. Shao, J. Liu, H.-H. Fang, L. Qiu, G. H. ten Brink, J. C. Hummelen,
L. J. A. Koster, M. A. Loi, Adv. Energy Mater. 2017, 7, 1701305.
[114] G. Liu, C. Zhou, F. Wan, K. Li, Y. Yuan, Y. Gao, Y. Lu, B. Yang, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 2018, 113, 113501.
[115] N.  Shrestha, Z.  Song, C.  Chen, E.  Bastola, X.  Wang, Y.  Yan,
R. J. Ellingson, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2019, 11, 121.
[116] R. T. Ginting, E.-S. Jung, M.-K. Jeon, W.-Y. Jin, M. Song, J.-W. Kang,
Nano Energy 2016, 27, 569.
[117] Y. Chen, S. Tan, N. Li, B. Huang, X. Niu, L. Li, M. Sun, Y. Zhang,
X. Zhang, C. Zhu, N. Yang, H. Zai, Y. Wu, S. Ma, Y. Bai, Q. Chen,
F. Xiao, K. Sun, H. Zhou, Joule 2020, 4, 1961.
[118] L. K.  Reb, M.  Böhmer, B.  Predeschly, S.  Grott, C. L.  Weindl,
G. I. Ivandekic, R. Guo, C. Dreißigacker, R. Gernhäuser, A. Meyer,
P. Müller-Buschbaum, Joule 2020, 4, 1880.
© 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advmat.de

Yongguang Tu is an Associate Professor in the Institute of Flexible Electronics (IFE),

Northwestern Polytechnical University. He received his Bachelor’s degree in 2012 and Ph.D.
degree in 2017 both from Huaqiao University, China. From 2017 to 2019, he joined Prof. Rui Zhu’s
group at Peking University as a Boya postdoctoral fellow. He then joined the Institute of Flexible
Electronics, Northwestern Polytechnical University in 2019. He studies novel materials focusing
on perovskites for a sustainable energy future.

Qihuang Gong is a Professor in the State Key Laboratory of Artificial Microstructure and
Mesoscopic Physics, Institute of Modern Optics, School of Physics, Peking University and
Member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2013). He received his Bachelor’s degree in 1983
and Ph.D. degree in 1989 both from Peking University. His research interests include optoelec-
tronic materials and devices, ultrafast optics, nonlinear optics, and mesoscopic optics.

Rui Zhu is a Professor in the State Key Laboratory of Artificial Microstructure and Mesoscopic
Physics, Institute of Modern Optics, School of Physics, Peking University. He received his
Bachelor’s degree from Nanjing University in 2003 and Ph.D. degree from Fudan University in
2007. Since 2013, he has been working at Peking University as an Associate Professor in the
School of Physics. From 2019, he was promoted to the tenured professor position. His research
focuses on new types of photovoltaic materials and photovoltaic cells.

Wei Huang received his B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry from Peking University
in 1983, 1988, and 1992, respectively. In 2001, he became a chair professor at Fudan University,
where he founded the Institute of Advanced Materials. In June 2006, he was appointed as the
Deputy President of Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, where he founded
the Key Laboratory for Organic Electronics and Information Displays. In July 2012, he was
appointed as the President of Nanjing Tech University. He is a member of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences. His research interests include organic optoelectronics, nanomaterials, flexible elec-
tronics, and bioelectronics.

Adv. Mater. 2021, 2006545 2006545  (22 of 22) © 2021 Wiley-VCH GmbH