4.6 Article

Extinction Coefficients, Oscillator Strengths, and Radiative Lifetimes of CdSe, CdTe, and CdTe/CdSe Nanocrystals

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 117, 期 39, 页码 20268-20279

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jp4065449

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation SOLAR Program [CHE-0934615]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we critically examine the literature and provide new data on fundamental optical properties of II-VI quantum dots (QDs). Specifically, we examine the integrated extinction coefficients and radiative lifetimes of different sizes of CdSe and CdTe QDs and different shell thicknesses in CdTe/CdSe core/shell QDs. We have synthesized particles having very high quantum yields and find that the measured radiative lifetimes are considerably longer and have a very different size dependence than what has been previously reported. In a simple two level system the integrated extinction coefficients (or oscillator strengths) are related to the radiative lifetimes through the Einstein relations. The situation is more complicated in the case of II-VI QDs because of the thermal accessibility of dark states resulting from the valence band fine structure. There are Significant but not equal populations in both bright and dark sublevels of the 1S(e)-1S(3/2) exciton and in the dark 1S(e)-1P(3/2) exciton. These Boltzmann populations depend on the QD size and shape We find that in all three cases, quantitative Or semiquantitative agreement between the measured radiative lifetimes and values calculated from the integrated extinction coefficients is obtained only if Boltzmann populations in all of the thermally accessible bright and dark states are considered. We also find that the shell thickness dependence of the radiative lifetimes of the CdTe/CdSe core/shell particles can be quantitatively understood in terms of overlap of calculated electron and hole wave. functions The results and analyses presented here clarify several discrepancies in the literature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据