Novel perovskite solar cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector.

This paper reports numerical modeling of perovskite solar cell which has been knotted with Distributed Bragg Reflector pairs to extract high energy efficiency. The geometry of the proposed cells is simulated with three different kinds of perovskite materials including CH3NH3PbI3, CH3NH3PbBr3, and CH3NH3SnI3. The toxic perovskite material based on Lead iodide and lead bromide appears to be more efficient as compared to non-toxic perovskite material. The executed simulated photovoltaic parameters with the highest efficient structure are open circuit voltage = 1.409 (V), short circuit current density = 24.09 mA/cm2, fill factor = 86.18%, and efficiency = 24.38%. Moreover, a comparison of the current study with different kinds of structures has been made and surprisingly our novel geometry holds enhanced performance parameters that are featured with back reflector pairs (Si/SiO2). The applied numerical approach and presented designing effort of geometry are beneficial to obtain results that have the potential to address problems with less efficient thin-film solar cells.

Introduction

Substitute to fossil fuel to generate energy through cleaner source is solar energy which is an endless and unlimited source for obtaining sunlight that can be transformed into another form of energy. Different approaches [1, 2], techniques [3-5], and methods [6, 7] have been investigated, demonstrated, and reported to improve the design and geometry of the device that can be used to generate electricity and can be utilized as a replacement to typical non-environmental friendly methods [8] that have been used to generate power. Solar cell technology is an inexhaustible, reliable, and commercialized technology that has been considered by the photovoltaic community to generate electric power through the photovoltaic effect [9, 10].

Different materials such as organic polymers [11, 12], silicon [13, 14], CIGS [15, 16], and CdS/CdTe [17, 18] have been investigated numerically to improve the device performance to obtain high conversion efficiency. Moreover, numerical modeling and simulation are always encouraged to estimate the parameters before moving towards the fabrication side. The benefit of numerically modeling before fabrication helps to avoid unwanted results and save time as well as manufacturing cost [19, 20]. Several different kinds and materials have been synthesized [21, 22] and investigated to produce high conversion efficiency. However, the hindrance to commercializing these technologies on large scale is still a challenging task because of low efficiency which restricts the usage of this thin-film technology. Major losses in the solar cells mostly occur due to reflection and utilization of that architecture which does not have sufficient capacity to absorb sunlight. On the other hand, cell architecture which supports a large number of losses needs kind can be of great change if an efficient design is made such as the utilization of different methods and techniques. On top of that, Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) [23, 24], found to be an imperative approach to absorb the light by reflecting those lights which were supposed to be a loss but can be capture by using different pairs with relevant materials. Management to capture the reflected light from the back surface towards the active region is one of the most important and difficult parameters as it requires a high beam of approach to reduce the optical losses by utilizing different imperative materials which significantly results in the improvement of the device performance and provide high efficiency.

J. Duan et al., investigated lanthanide ions doped CsPbBr3 Halides for HTM and obtain 10.14% efficiency [25]. T. Singh et al., fabricated perovskite solar cells in ambient air under controlled humidity and extracted 20.8% efficiency [26]. S. A. Kazmi et al., investigated cadmium telluride solar cell with three pairs of DBR and obtained an ղ of 23.94% [24]. J. Feng et al., investigated stable flexible perovskite solar cells using an effective additive assistant strategy and extracted 22.7% efficiency [27]. J. J. Yoo et al., investigated an interface stabilized perovskite solar cell with low voltage loss and obtained an efficiency of 22.6% [28]. J. C. Yu et al., investigated stable inverted perovskite solar cells via treatment by semiconducting chemical additive and obtained 20.3% efficiency [29]. E. H. Jung et al., investigated stable and scalable perovskite solar cells using poly(3-hexylthiophene) and extracted 22.72% efficiency [30]. H. Ren et al., invested the stable Ruddlesden–Popper perovskite solar cell with tailored interlayer molecular interaction and obtained an efficiency of 18.06% [31]. X. Ren et al., investigated chlorine‐modified SnO2 electron transport layer for high‐efficiency perovskite solar cells and obtained an efficiency of 17.81% [32]. A. Solanki et al., reported efficiency of 20.83% by using a novel approach of heavy water additive in formamidinium for efficiency enhancement in perovskite solar cells [33]. J-H. Lee et al., utilized (SnO2-SiO2) as a DBR material in MAPbI3 based perovskite solar cell and reported the highest conversion efficiency of 9.52% [34]. O. Isabella et al., improved the performance of the thin-film silicon solar cell by utilizing a-Si:H/SiNx:H as a DBR layer material and covered the reflectance peak of 600 nm [35]. Y. Peng et al., used TiO2/SiO2 as a DBR material and observed an enhancement of over 20% efficiency in the solar cell when fabricated on glass and PET substrate [36]. S. Mitra et al., numerically investigated the different combination of DBR materials such as SiO2/a:Si, SiO2/TiO2 and SiO2/SiNx via 3-FDTD simulation and optimized the structure for covering wavelength range of 900–1100 nm [37].

Herein, we numerically commutated thin-film perovskite solar cells with DBR pairs in different schematics. The structure based on methylammonium lead bromide was found to be more efficient as compared to other perovskite materials.

Framework and modeling

Using the general purpose photovoltaic device model, the geometry of the solar cells is designed with different functional layers as depicted in Fig 1. The function of the functional layers is as follows: Glass as a protecting layer. FTO as a top transparent electrode, Al2O3 as hole blocking layer (HBL), the advantage of using HBL layer is that it strongly block the flow of holes in the upper region to avoid recombination, SnO2 as an electron transport layer (ETL), as ETL provides a smooth path for the flow of electrons [38]. Next, the perovskite layer is patched as a major light-harvesting layer because perovskite can deliver high energy efficiency. Moreover, it has low manufacturing cost and holds high mechanical flexibility which makes it ideal for thin-film technology (TFT). Next to the active layer, the hole transport layer (HTL) is stacked to provide a path for the flow of holes [39]. For the HTL, Spiro OmeTAD is selected due to its tremendous properties such as high thermal stability, high mobility of holes, and easy manufacturing process. For the bottom electrode, zinc oxide (ZnO) is doped with aluminum (Al). The doped electrode helps in passing the light towards the DBR section which is composed of effective reflecting materials silicon (Si) and silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is also known as stannic oxide. The DBR section consist of four pairs of Si/SiO2 as a back reflector.

Fig 1

Geometry of the proposed solar cell composed of different functional materials, glass as protecting layer, FTO as a top transparent electrode, Al2O3 as HBL, SnO2 as ETL, Perovskite as an active layer, Spiro OmeTAD as HTL, NiO2 as EBL, ZnO:Al as transparent electrode/light spectrum passing layer towards DBR pairs, and DBR as a back reflector (Si/SiO2).

Numerically, the structure is based on the drift-diffusion model which can be represented by Eq 1 and Eq 2

The utilization of Poisson equation and equation of continuity for calculations can be expressed as Eq 3, Eq 4 and Eq 5 respectively.

The fill factor and PCE of the device can be calculated by Eq 6 and Eq 7 respectively.

Results and discussion

Photons Management in a solar cell depends on the geometry of the cell in which it has been designed. The geometry of the cell must consist of those materials which can absorb sunlight in a bulk amount that can result in the enhancement of e-h pairs which further boost the performance of the cell. In this objective full study, the aim of achieving high conversion efficiency from perovskite solar cell is obtained by using a different number of pairs in DBR stacked. Three different cases with different perovskite materials are investigated with deep insight into the cell thickness to obtained high-performance parameters. The simulated input parameters are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1

Simulated input parameters.

Parameters	FTO	Al203	SnO2	NiO2	Pb based Perovskite	ZnO:Al	Tin based Perovskite	Si	SiO2	Spiro
m*n/mo	0.26	2.86	0.24	1.794	-	0.010	-	162	-	-
m*p/mo	0.6	4.23	0.4	1.78	-	3.37	-	1.124	-	-
Dielectric Constant ε/ε0	2.846	9.8	9.86	-	-	4.45	-	4.05	3.9	4.4
Electron Affinity	3.2	3.71	7.47	1.46	-	9	4.17	11.8	1.5	2.2
Electron Mobility μe	20E-4	165	23–106	32.54	2.33 x 10−4	2.320E+18	1.6 x 10−4	2.800E +19	20	1 x 10−8
Hole Mobility μh	10E-4	5	6	0.07–4.4	3.22 x 1010−4	1.845E+19	1.6 x 10−4	2.600E+19	18	1 x 10−8
Band Gap Energy Eg	3.25	4.64	3.57	3.6	1.6	2.5	1.3	1.12	8.76	2.9
Conduction band effective density of states NC	1 x 10 22	1.50 x1018	1.04 x 1019	3.2·1019	-	1.2 X 1017	-	-	-	-
Valence band effective density of states NV	-	1.80E +19	1.8 x 1019	-	-	-	-	1.000E+19		-

Case 1

To extract high-performance parameters there is a dire need to utilize those materials which have a high coefficient of absorption. As the high absorption coefficient materials help to absorb the incoming photonic energy light more efficiently as compared to those which have a low absorption coefficient. Fig 2 shows the proposed geometry of the cell in which lead bromide perovskite is used as a major absorption layer and modulated between 500–600 nm to attain high electrical parameters. The cell performance increases with the increase in the thickness of the active layer. The observed improvement in the cell is because of the active layer which shows high absorption. The improved parameters at 570 nm is a shred of evidence that indicates that at this optimal thickness the absorption is high which sequentially delivers high PV parameters. This high absorption further helps in the creation of e-h pairs which mobilize in the material and got collected at the respected electrode after giving high values of the performance parameters. As the amount of the active layer thickness increases in the cell, the supporting parameters such as V, J, FF, and PCE also increases as shown Fig 3(A)–3(D) respectively. The V of the device increases from 1.144–1.325 V when the thickness of the cell heightened from 500–570 nm whereas the J increases from 20.832–23.14 mA/cm2, FF from 85.84–85.87%, and PCE 21.01–23.42%. However, further action for increasing the amount of active layer in the geometry of the cell results in the decline of the electrical parameters because too much high thickness causes series resistance in the cell which suppresses the electrical parameters and deteriorates the cell performing parameters. Moreover, enhancement in the thickness after the optimal value gives rise to defect state densities [40]. Thus, the obtained PV parameters are in good agreement with the lambert law.

Fig 2

Geometry of the proposed solar cell composed of different functional materials, glass as protecting layer, FTO as a top transparent electrode, Al2O3 as HBL, SnO2 as ETL, CH3NH3PbBr3 as an active layer, Spiro OmeTAD as HTL, NiO2 as EBL, ZnO: Al as transparent electrode/light spectrum passing layer towards DBR pairs, and DBR as a back reflector (Si/SiO2).

Fig 3

Simulated photovoltaic parameters of novel geometry (a) V as an independent function of light-harvesting layer, (b) J as an independent function of the light-harvesting layer (c) FF as an independent function of light-harvesting layer (d) PCE as an independent function of light-harvesting layer.

Next, the geometry of the cell is configured with the DBR pairs which are composed of effective materials (Si/SiO2) as shown in Fig 4. Four pairs of DBR bilayers are implemented to reflect the light from the bottom portion of the cell to the active region which gets absorbed in the active region and results in the enhancement of e-h pairs which helps in gaining the improved electrical parameters.

Fig 4

Geometry of the DBR pairs after cooperating it on the solar cell bottom area (a) single pair (b) double pair (c) three pair and (d) four pair, where each pair is composed of (Si/SiO2).

In this case, when DBR pairs are inserted, the performance parameters increase linearly because the reflected light put a positive impact on the cell and thus produces higher values. The highest photovoltaic parameters were achieved when the cell is configured with four pairs. The V climbed from 1.325–1.409V, J from 23.14–24.09 mA/cm2, FF from 85.87–86.18% and PCE from 23.42–24.38% by delivering an enhancement of 0.084%, 0.95%, 0.31%, and 0.96% respectively as shown in Fig 5(A)–5(D). The recorded enhancement percentage indicates that the light is reflected in the active region, got absorbed, and gives rise to a greater number of e-h pairs which generate the enhanced PV parameters.

Fig 5

Simulated photovoltaic parameters of novel geometry with different DBR pairs (si/SnO2) (a) V as an independent function of light-harvesting layer, (b) J as an independent function of a light-harvesting layer (c) FF as an independent function of light-harvesting layer (d) PCE as an independent function of light-harvesting layer.

Case 2

Next, the active material is swapped with another kind of perovskite material i.e., Methylammonium lead iodide perovskite (CH3NH3PbI3) as displayed in Fig 6. CH3NH3PbI3 is also a typical material that is considered while designing thin-film perovskite solar cells because it has a low and easy fabrication process [41]. Moreover, this material has also a thin-film casting ability that can be utilized in optoelectronic devices. The ability of the material to absorb a large number of photons to a good limit is because of the absorption coefficient. Thus, these advantages of the material make them an ideal candidate for thin-film technology.

Fig 6

Geometry of the proposed solar cell composed of different functional materials, glass as protecting layer, FTO as a top transparent electrode, Al2O3 as HBL, SnO2 as ETL, CH3NH3PbI3 as an active layer, Spiro OmeTAD as HTL, NiO2 as EBL, ZnO: Al as transparent electrode/light spectrum passing layer towards DBR pairs, and DBR as a back reflector (Si/SiO2).

In this case, the same imperative approach of modulating the active layer is considered as in the previous case. Here again, as expected the same impact of thickness modulation is perceived. The PV parameters linearly increase when the thickness of the cell is increased and after attaining the critical value of 550 nm the PV parameters started fading which suggests that the optimal thickness of CH3NH3PbI3 is 550 nm in the proposed geometry. In context to the values of V, J, FF, and PCE the highest attainable values are 1.23 V, 21.16 mA/cm2, 85.86% and 22.24% as shown in Fig 7(A)–7(D) respectively. As discussed earlier, the fading values after the optimal thickness are obvious.

Fig 7

Simulated photovoltaic parameters of novel geometry (a) V as an independent function of light-harvesting layer, (b) J as an independent function of the light-harvesting layer (c) FF as an independent function of light-harvesting layer (d) PCE as an independent function of light-harvesting layer.

Here again, the cell is paired with DBR pairs to further improve the PV parameters. After inserting the DBR pairs, the Voc, Jsc, FF and PCE tends to be increased from 1.23 V, 21.16 mA/cm2, 85.86%, 22.24% to 1.32 V, 23.12 mA/cm2, 86.23% & 23.03% respectively as shown in Fig 8(A)–8(D). Thus, delivering an enhancement in the efficiency of 0.79%. The recorded parameters of this case are low as compared to case 1.

Fig 8

Simulated photovoltaic parameters of novel geometry with different DBR pairs (Si/SiO2) (a) V as an independent function of light-harvesting layer, (b) J as an independent function of the light-harvesting layer (c) FF as an independent function of light-harvesting layer (d) PCE as an independent function of light-harvesting layer.

Case 3

In this case, the active material is again swapped with another lead-free perovskite material as shown in Fig 9. The advantage of using lead-free based perovskite material is that it is non-toxic and environmental friendly [42]. Whereas the previous perovskite materials were toxic and non-environmental friendly because of the presence of lead. Tin-based perovskite material is also an effective material that can deliver good performance in a thin film.

Fig 9

Geometry of the proposed solar cell composed of different functional materials, glass as protecting layer, FTO as a top transparent electrode, Al2O3 as HBL, SnO2 as ETL, Tin based/Lead-Free perovskite as an active layer, Spiro OmeTAD as HTL, NiO2 as EBL, ZnO: Al as transparent electrode/light spectrum passing layer towards DBR pairs, and DBR as a back reflector (Si/SiO2).

The same imperative approach of thickness modulation is implemented in this geometry to observe its impact on the PV parameters. The same observation was observed in this case as well. The PV parameters improved linearly before attaining the optimal value of active thickness. At the optimal thickness, the highest efficiency of 20.67% is observed. The highest value of V, J, FF, and PCE was recorded at 590 nm as shown in Fig 10(A)–10(D) respectively. As discussed earlier in case 1 and case 2, the emerging decay in the values after optimal thickness is obvious.

Fig 10

Simulated photovoltaic parameters of novel geometry (a) V as an independent function of light-harvesting layer, (b) J as an independent function of a light-harvesting layer (c) FF as an independent function of light-harvesting layer (d) PCE as an independent function of light-harvesting layer.

Next, the cell is again paired with the DBR section and as observed in the previous cases, the PV parameter improved sequentially by adding the pairs of DBR. The highest efficiency of 21.28% with V = 1.168 V, J = 21.424 mA/cm2 and FF = 86.06% were achieved with four pairs as shown in Fig 11(A)–11(D) respectively. However, the performance of this cell is low as compared to Case 1 and Case 2 but can be utilized if one has the objective to obtain energy from non-toxic and environmentally friendly materials.

Fig 11

Simulated photovoltaic parameters of novel geometry with different DBR pairs (Si/SiO2) (a) V as an independent function of light-harvesting layer, (b) J as an independent function of the light-harvesting layer (c) FF as an independent function of light-harvesting layer (d) PCE as an independent function of light-harvesting layer.

Fig 12(A) demonstrates the reflectance of the structure after implementing the DBR pairs, where N = 4 represents the number of pairs used. The absorption coverage of all the investigated structures with and without DBR is depicted in Fig 12(B), which shows that the structure with the DBR pairs sufficiently attained the high coverage of absorption as compared to the structure without DBR pairs. Furthermore and potentially the presented approach provides a new perspective towards the utilization of the DBR technique in solar cells, because the DBR pairs help in achieving the high PV performance parameters. In addition, the comparison of all the presented cases based on efficiency is summarized in Fig 12(C).

Fig 12

(a) Demonstration of Reflectance Vs Wavelength at optimized DBR pairs (b) Absorption coverage range of the proposed structures with and without DBR pairs (c) Optimized efficiency comparison of the proposed structures featured with DBR pairs.

Eventually, a comparison is made with various kinds of other cells based on DBR and without DBR and are summarized in Table 2 & our proposed geometry holds higher conversion efficiency.

Table 2

Comparison of the current study with various kind of solar cells.

Reference	Structure	η (%)
[17]	Glass/TCO/SnO2/CdS/CdTe/Back contact	23.01
[43]	ITO/Ga-TiO2/PTB7:PC71BM/MoO3/Al	7.72
[44]	Glass/ITO/PEDOT:PSS/P3HT:PCBM/TiO2/PEDOT:PSS/PTB7:PCBM/TiO2/Al	13.96
[45]	SLG/Mo/CZTS/ZnS/ AZO/Ag	3.02
[46]	Glass/FTO/ZSO/Perovskite/Spiro OmeTAD/Au	21.3
[37]	FC/ARC/n-Si/p-Si/PRC/Silica nanoparticles/DBR (SiO2/a:Si)	22.54
[37]	FC/ARC/n-Si/p-Si/PRC/Silica nanoparticles/ DBR (SiO2/TiO2)	22.91
[37]	FC/ARC/n-Si/p-Si/PRC/Silica nanoparticles/ DBR (SiO2/SiNx)	22.81
[34]	Au/Spiro-MeOTAD/Perovskite/SnO2/FTO/Glass/DBR (SnO2/SiO2)	9.52
[47]	Glass/TiO2/ZnS/CIGS/ZnTe/ZnO:Al/DBR (Si/TiO2)	23.29
Current Study	Glass/FTO/Al2O3/SnO2/Perovskite/Spiro-OmeTAD/NiO2/ZnO: Al/DBR(Si/SiO2)	24.38

Conclusion

In summary, we numerically investigated the novel geometry of solar cells which is based on perovskite material as a photoactive layer and Si/SiO2 as a back reflector in DBR pairs. The geometry of the cell-based on CH3NH3PbBr3 with four pairs of DBR was found to be super-efficient as compared to other geometries. The proposed geometry delivers the highest efficiency of 24.38%. Moreover, the demonstrated results provide a deep insight into the geometry which can be used to capture the reflected light back into the active material more efficiently as compared to those structures which lack a back reflector.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

6 May 2021

PONE-D-21-06292

Novel Perovskite Solar Cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rehman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jinbao Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The authors would like to thank Sarhad University of Science and Information Technology

(SUIT), US-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy, University of Engineering &

Technology, Peshawar, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Pakistan, University of Engineering and

Technology, Mardan, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Pakistan,and University of Technology,

Nowshera, Pakistan for the support provided for this research."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This work was supported by The China National Key R&D Program (No. 2018YFB0803600), Natural Science Foundation of China(61801008), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (L172049), Scientific Research Common Program of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education (No.KM201910005025) and Chinese Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2020M670074)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 9 and Figure 11 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is trying to report the numerically investigated perovskite based solar cells with DBR structures, which is an interesting area. but the logical structure, the data and languages of the manuscript need to be improved before consideration for publication. the comments are listed below:

1. The three perovskite materials structures should be compared side by side to draw the conclusion.

2. The performance (e.g. reflectance) of DBRs should be provided. Also, the authors should be clarify the DBR materials, Si/SiO2 or Si/SnO2?

3. The properties of three perovskite materials should be provided, including structures, optical properties, etc.

4. there are some mislabels and lots of highlights, e.g. si/siO2 should be Si/SiO2? please check the whole manuscript carefully to avoid them.

Reviewer #2: This work modelled the performance of CH3NH3PbI3, CH3NH3PbBr3, and CH3NH3SnI3 perovskite cells with DBR as the rear reflector. It has certain values, but substantial improvements are required before publication. Specific comments are:

1. The language needs to be improved.

2. Line 60-74, this paragraph needs a bit more logic. The authors are just listing various works, but these works are not relevant to the topic of your work. I would suggest either discuss the improvement of perovskite efficiencies over the years, or survey the use of various rear reflectors.

3. Check equation 7

4. Please double check you DBR materials, Si/SiO2 or Si/SnO2? Si/SnO2 in used in all figure captions.

5. Line 134, “The cell performance surprisingly increases with increasing the height of the active layer.” Why suprisingly? Normally we use “thickness” instead of “height” to describe layer thickness.

6. Line 141, “supplementary Fig 3(a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively” there is no supplementary information, delete supplementary.

7. Line 155 “Four pairs of DBR”, DBR refers to the whole alternating layer stack, a more proper way should be four pairs of DBR bilayers.

8. The comparison in Table 2 does not provide any useful information. The authors are comparing totally irrelevant designs. The audience could nor draw any useful information from the comparison between different structures, especially experimental work vs. modelling results on various solar cell. A more appropriate comparison table could be comparing the same perovskite structure with various rear reflectors designs, so the authors could conclude whether a DBR is superior than other reflectors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Jun 2021

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

(PONE-D-21-06292)

Dear Editor and Reviewers:

I, as a corresponding author on behalf of all coauthors, would like to thank you for the careful review and constructive comments regarding the initial version of our manuscript, which was submitted to PlosOne Journal entitled “Novel Perovskite Solar Cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector” (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-06292). We would also like to express our gratitude for providing us with constructive comments that turned out to improve the quality of the revised version of the paper. We carefully reviewed our paper considering reviewers’ comments and revised the paper accordingly. Moreover, proofreading has been carried out thoroughly and extensively by removing all the presentation errors and ambiguities in order to improve the readability of the paper. We hope that the reviewers find the changes satisfactory and the revised manuscript successfully addresses the questions and comments of the reviewers. We attach this authors’ reply letter that discusses our changes made with respect to each of the reviewers’ comments. The detailed response to each comment and our corresponding revisions are outlined on the next page (reviewers’ comments in black, our replies in blue). For convenience, new additions and major changes are highlighted in “YELLOW” color in the revised manuscript. Again, the reviews were very constructive, and the comments have been very helpful in terms of improving our work. We take this opportunity to express our appreciation for your expertise and invaluable assistance in reviewing our draft. We hope that the revised draft provides a better presentation of our work. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully yours,

Shanshan Tu,

Ph.D.

E-mail: sstu@bjut.edu.cn

Response to Reviewer Comments

(Reviewer 1)

Reviewer 1: The three perovskite materials structures should be compared side by side to draw the conclusion.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment as side-by-side comparison is always considered best for better understanding of the structure performance. The point is valid, and comparison graph has been added in the revised version of the manuscript such as side by side comparison of the investigated on the basis of Absorption and efficiency. Please visit Figure 12 (b) and (c).

Reviewer 1: The performance (e.g. reflectance) of DBRs should be provided. Also, the authors should be clarify the DBR materials, Si/SiO2 or Si/SnO2?

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. The reflectance graph is important for understanding the DBR performance. The reflectance graph has been added in the revised version of the manuscript. Please visit Figure 12 (a). For the DBR material correction, we are once again thanking to the Reviewer for observing typo error. The utilized material for DBR is Si/SiO2.

Reviewer 1: The properties of three perovskite materials should be provided, including structures, optical properties, etc

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. The properties of the materials are available in Table 1. And for the optical properties, we have added the absorption (%) of all the structures with and without DBR pairs. The included graph helps in better understanding of the DBR pairs and its impact on the investigated structures. Please visit Figure 12 (b).

Reviewer 1: There are some mislabels and lots of highlights, e.g. si/siO2 should be Si/SiO2? Please check the whole manuscript carefully to avoid them.

Author Reply: We really want to thank the respected Reviewer for highlighting the mislabels. The correction has been performed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer Comments

(Reviewer 2)

Reviewer 2: The language needs to be improved.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. Language is an important tool for understanding the manuscript. The point is valid, and we have improved the language of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2: Line 60-74, this paragraph needs a bit more logic. The authors are just listing various works, but these works are not relevant to the topic of your work. I would suggest either discuss the improvement of perovskite efficiencies over the years, or survey the use of various rear reflectors.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for pointing out the weaker area of the manuscript. The point is valid as well. The literature regarding the rear reflectors has been added in the revised version of the manuscript. Please visit line 74-82.

Reviewer 2: Check equation 7

Author Reply: Respected Reviewer, we have checked Equation 7, it is used for calculating the power conversion efficiency (PCE), ղ of the cell and is correct.

Reviewer 2: Please double check you DBR materials, Si/SiO2 or Si/SnO2? Si/SnO2 in used in all figure captions.

Author Reply: We really want to thank respected Reviewer of pointing out this error. The point is valid, and we have checked the DBR material. It was typing error and has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript. The utilized material for DBR is Si/SiO2.

Reviewer 2: Line 134, “The cell performance surprisingly increases with increasing the height of the active layer.” Why suprisingly? Normally we use “thickness” instead of “height” to describe layer thickness

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for correcting us. The concern is valid, and the word “height” is replaced with the more appropriate word “thickness”.

Reviewer 2: Line 141, “supplementary Fig 3(a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively” there is no supplementary information, delete supplementary.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. The word supplementary has been removed as per respected suggestion.

Reviewer 2: Line 155 “Four pairs of DBR”, DBR refers to the whole alternating layer stack, a more proper way should be four pairs of DBR bilayers.

Author Reply: We really want to thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. As per respected suggestion the “Four pairs of DBR” is replaced with the more appropriate word “ Four pairs of DBR bilayers”.

Reviewer 2: The comparison in Table 2 does not provide any useful information. The authors are comparing totally irrelevant designs. The audience could nor draw any useful information from the comparison between different structures, especially experimental work vs. modelling results on various solar cell. A more appropriate comparison table could be comparing the same perovskite structure with various rear reflectors designs, so the authors could conclude whether a DBR is superior than other reflectors.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. The comparison table was made to understand the performance of different kind of solar cells with the investigated solar cell material as there is no such material available in the literature for perovskite incorporated with DBR and here our novelty stands.

However, as per respected suggestion by the Reviewer, we have updated the comparison table 2 by adding more appropriate structures based on DBR.

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-06292R1

Novel Perovskite Solar Cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rehman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jinbao Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have been addressed my questions, the manuscript could be considered to publish after revising the following points:

1. In Figure 4, DBR1,DBR2,DBR3, DBR4 should be replaced with 1 pair DBR, 2 pairs DBR, 3 pairs DBR,4 pairs DBR.

2. In Figrue 12a and b, there are no labels for the lines. The different color lines should be labelled clearly.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been improved, but there are same parts need further clarification.

1. Equation 7, the symbol for efficiency is not shown properly. I am seeing a question mark inside a box.

2. Figure 5, the lines connecting the dots should not be smooth lines. Fig5 (b), the smooth line indicates 2.5 DBR pairs is worse than 2 pairs.

3. Figure 12, legend is need for plots (a) and (b). what does each coloured lines mean?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Jul 2021

A step by step response to reviewers is attached.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-06292R2

Novel Perovskite Solar Cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rehman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jinbao Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please response the comments below from reviewers.

1.The authors have been addressed my questions, the manuscript could be considered to publish after revising the following points:

(1). In Figure 4, DBR1,DBR2,DBR3, DBR4 should be replaced with 1 pair DBR, 2 pairs DBR, 3 pairs DBR,4 pairs DBR.

(2). In Figrue 12a and b, there are no labels for the lines. The different color lines should be labelled clearly.

2. The manuscript has been improved, but there are same parts need further clarification.

(1). Equation 7, the symbol for efficiency is not shown properly. I am seeing a question mark inside a box.

(2). Figure 5, the lines connecting the dots should not be smooth lines. Fig5 (b), the smooth line indicates 2.5 DBR pairs is worse than 2 pairs.

(3). Figure 12, legend is need for plots (a) and (b). what does each coloured lines mean?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 Oct 2021

Response to Reviewer Comments

(Reviewer 1)

Reviewer 1: The authors have been addressed my questions, the manuscript could be considered to publish after revising the following points:

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for accepting our efforts and suggesting acceptance after minor revisions.

________________________________________

Reviewer 1: 1. In Figure 4, DBR1,DBR2,DBR3, DBR4 should be replaced with 1 pair DBR, 2 pairs DBR, 3 pairs DBR,4 pairs DBR.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment, as these kinds of comments always make the manuscript more worthy and easy for the readers to understand the study more precisely and accurately. As per respected suggestion, Figure 4 has been updated in the revised version of the manuscript.

________________________________________

Reviewer 1: 2. In Figure 12a and b, there are no labels for the lines. The different color lines should be labelled clearly.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for comment. The point is valid, and proper labels for the colored lines have been updated in the revised version of the manuscript.

________________________________________

Response to Reviewer Comments

(Reviewer 2)

Reviewer 2: The manuscript has been improved, but there are same parts need further clarification.

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for observing improvement in the manuscript.

________________________________________

Reviewer 2: Equation 7, the symbol for efficiency is not shown properly. I am seeing a question mark inside a box

Author Reply: Respected Reviewer, the symbol of efficiency (ղ) in Equation 7 is clearly visible in our revised version. There might be some internal error, which is not showing the correct symbol to the Reviewers draft. Once again, we have edited Equation 7, and hope so, it will be visible clearly in the revised version of the manuscript.

________________________________________

Reviewer 2: Figure 5, the lines connecting the dots should not be smooth lines. Fig5 (b), the smooth line indicates 2.5 DBR pairs is worse than 2 pairs.

Author Reply: We respect the Reviewer's point of view regarding Figure 5 (b). The plot is made in the latest version of the Origin PRO, and the B-Spine option is used for the presented Data. There are no 2.5 pairs used. The number of DBR is as follows 1, 2, 3, and 4. The slight decay between 2 and 3 pairs is the slope that software has produced to give a smooth graphical line.

________________________________________

Reviewer 2: Figure 12, legend is need for plots (a) and (b). what does each coloured lines mean?

Author Reply: We thank the respected Reviewer for this comment. The point is valid and Figures 12 (a) and (b) have been updated in the revised version of the manuscript. Colored lines represent different cases of the study.

________________________________________

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Oct 2021

Novel Perovskite Solar Cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector

PONE-D-21-06292R3

Dear Dr. Rehman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jinbao Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

17 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-06292R3

Novel Perovskite Solar Cell with Distributed Bragg Reflector

Dear Dr. Rehman:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jinbao Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE