As the solvent has a strong impact on the formation of PVSK crystals, other organic solvents, like 2-methoxyethanol (2-Me) and DMSO, are used for preparing PbBr
2 solutions. The morphologies of the PVSK-gel composites fabricated by different solvents are displayed in Fig.
S4A and B. For the 2-Me-based composite, the sample surface is covered with PVSK grains, which hinders the PbBr
2 solution from penetrating into the gel inner. The cross-sectional SEM image further confirms that the PVSK grains only agglomerate at the sample surface to form a dense layer (Fig.
S3B), which suggests that the PVSK crystallization only occurs at the sample surface. In contrast, different sized grains are observed in the DMSO-based sample (Fig.
S4B). Additionally, the cross-section of the gel is full of inadequately reacted PVSK precursors (Fig.
S3C). The morphology difference originates from the specific functional groups of organic solvents, which affect the coordination effect between PVSK precursors and solvents [
34]. The coordination capacity of solvent with solute can be determined by the donor number (
DN), where a higher
DN represents the ability to form a stronger coordination intermediate adduct with electron acceptor Pb
2+. Referring to the literature, the
DN values of 2-Me, dimethylacetamide (DMAc), and DMSO solvents were determined to be 19.7, 27.8, and 29.8 kcal/mol, respectively [
35,
36]. The interaction between the solvents and PVSK precursors is studied by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) measurements. As shown in Fig.
S5A, the characteristic absorption peak of the C=O bond in DMAc shifts to lower wave number in the PbBr
2 solution and then returns to the original position in the PVSK precursor solution [
7]. The shift is ascribed to the C=O···Pb
2+ coordination, and this coordination can be destroyed by CsBr [
16]. Compared to the DMAc, no shift is observed in the characteristic peaks of 2-Me regardless of the PbBr
2 and subsequent CsBr addition (Fig.
S5B), indicating weaker coordination effect between Pb
2+ and 2-Me as the solvent has less
DN [
37]. The weak solute–solvent interaction causes a rapid reaction between PbBr
2 and CsBr, leading to the formation of massive PVSK grains on the sample surface. For the DMSO, a new absorption peak located at 1,013 cm
−1 appears in the PbBr
2 solution (Fig.
S5C), which originates from the PbBr
2·DMSO intermediate adducts [
38,
39]. In the PVSK precursor solution, the peak intensity decreases steadily over time, indicating a slow reaction between PbBr
2 and CsBr. This observation is visually verified by the color change after adding CsBr into the PbBr
2 solutions with different solvents. As shown in Fig.
S6, CsBr quickly turns into orange upon contact with the 2-Me-based solution and then the color remains unchanged over time. For the DMAc-based solution, CsBr gradually changes its color to orange with time, whereas it keeps the original color in the DMSO-based solution regardless of the storage time. This occurrence experimentally confirms that the coordination effect between the solvent and PVSK precursors plays a critical role in the crystallization rate of PVSK. Consequently, the obtained PVSK-gel samples based on these 3 solvents feature different luminescent looks under UV illumination (Fig.
S7). The difference in the luminous intensity and luminescence uniformity is clearly visible for these 3 samples. For a quantitative comparison, the PLQY of the DMAc-based sample is determined to be 43.2%, which is superior to samples prepared with 2-Me and DMSO solvents, reading 30.9% and 17.7%, respectively.