The development of organic photovoltaic (OPV) devices based on non-fullerene acceptors (NFAs) has led to a rapid improvement in their efficiency. Despite these improvements, significant performance degradation in the early stages of operation, known as burn-in, remains a challenge for NFA-based OPVs. To address this challenge, this study demonstrates a stable NFA-based OPV fabricated using sequential deposition (SqD) and a quasi-orthogonal solvent. The quasi-orthogonal solvent, which is prepared by incorporating 1-chloronaphthalene (1-CN) into dichloromethane (DCM), reduces the vapor pressure of the solvent and allows for the efficient dissolution and penetration of the Y6 (one of efficient NFAs) into a PM6 polymer-donor layer without damaging the latter. The resulting bulk heterojunction (BHJ) is characterized by a higher degree of crystallinity in the PM6 domains than that prepared using a conventional single-step deposition (SD) process. The OPV fabricated using the SqD process exhibits a PCE of 14.1% and demonstrates superior thermal stability to the SD-processed OPV. This study conclusively reveals that the formation of a thermally stable interface between the photoactive layer and the electron-transport layer (ETL) is the primary factor contributing to the high thermal stability observed in the SqD-processed OPV.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.