Abstract
This comment analyzes pitfalls when investigating piezoresponse and ferroelectricity in organic-metal halide perovskite thin films.
Highlights
In their recent publication ‘‘Ferroelectricity-free lead halide perovskites’’ Gomez et al set out to investigate whether or not the archetypical methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI3) and the more advanced Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Pb(I0.83Br0.17)[3] (CsFAMAPbIBr) are ferroelectric or not.[1]
The authors employed a novel atomic force microscopy (AFM) method, which they named ‘‘direct piezoelectric force microscopy’’ (DPFM), to probe piezoelectric effects from domains with alternating polarization that commonly occur in ferroelectric materials.[2]
DPFM measures currents through the AFM tip that are generated by the piezoelectric effect in the sample under a mechanic load
Summary
In their recent publication ‘‘Ferroelectricity-free lead halide perovskites’’ Gomez et al set out to investigate whether or not the archetypical methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI3) and the more advanced Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Pb(I0.83Br0.17)[3] (CsFAMAPbIBr) are ferroelectric or not.[1] The authors employed a novel atomic force microscopy (AFM) method, which they named ‘‘direct piezoelectric force microscopy’’ (DPFM), to probe piezoelectric effects from domains with alternating polarization that commonly occur in ferroelectric materials.[2] DPFM measures currents through the AFM tip that are generated by the piezoelectric effect in the sample under a mechanic load. This situation can occur during operation, light-soaking or lifetime testing and would require a careful interpretation of measurement data.[17]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
