Reply to the Comment on “Phase transitions, screening and dielectric response of CsPbBr 3 ” by Š. Svirskas, S. Balčiūnas, M. Šimėnas, G. Usevičius, M. Kinka, M. Velička, D. Kubicki, M. E. Castillo, A. Karabanov, V. V. Shvartsman, M. R. Soares, V. Šablinskas, A. N. Salak, D. C. Lupascu and J. Banys, J. Mater. Chem. A , 2020, 8 , 14015

In this reply, we address the concerns that were raised about our paper on CsPbBr 3 single crystals. M. Szafrański criticized the dielectric and DSC data in our original paper claiming that they were affected by the experimental artefacts or poor quality of the investigated single crystals, as his D...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of materials chemistry. A, Materials for energy and sustainability Materials for energy and sustainability, 2021-05, Vol.9 (18), p.11453-11455
Hauptverfasser: Svirskas, Šarūnas, Balčiūnas, Sergejus, Šimėnas, Mantas, Usevičius, Gediminas, Kinka, Martynas, Velička, Martynas, Kubicki, Dominik, Escobar Castillo, Marianela, Karabanov, Andrei, Shvartsman, Vladimir V., Soares, Maria de Rosário, Šablinskas, Valdas, Salak, Andrei N., Lupascu, Doru C., Banys, Jūras
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In this reply, we address the concerns that were raised about our paper on CsPbBr 3 single crystals. M. Szafrański criticized the dielectric and DSC data in our original paper claiming that they were affected by the experimental artefacts or poor quality of the investigated single crystals, as his DSC and dielectric data did not show any low temperature anomalies in CsPbBr 3 . We argue in this reply that our main conclusions were not made based on the DSC and dielectric experiments. Here, we emphasize the importance of other experiments like EPR and XRD that were performed to understand if there are any structural transformations of CsPbBr 3 at low temperatures. We believe that M. Szafrański did not take into account all the discussion that was presented in our original paper. We hope to clear the doubts in this reply.
ISSN:2050-7488
2050-7496
DOI:10.1039/D1TA02123K