4.6 Article

Impact of passivation on the Dirac cones of 2D topological insulators

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 131, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0094246

关键词

-

资金

  1. imec's Industrial AffiliationProgram
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1802166]
  3. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO)
  4. Flemish Government-Department EWI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Topological insulators have unique properties that make them promising for next-generation electronic devices. Passivating stanene nanoribbons is necessary for their implementation in devices. We develop a tight-binding model based on the Kane-Mele model and show its agreement with density functional theory calculations, capturing the physics of passivated edge bands.
Topological insulators have unique properties that make them promising materials for future implementation in next-generation electronic devices. However, topological insulators like stanene nanoribbons need to be passivated before they can be used in devices. We calculate the electronic band structure of stanene nanoribbons (SNRs) that are passivated by hydrogen (H), fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), or sodium (Na). We show that the difference between the electronegativity of the passivation material and the tin atoms defines the position of the Dirac cone of the topological insulator edge states. We develop a four-parameter tight-binding model based on the Kane-Mele model [Kane and Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005); Kane and Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005)]. The hopping parameters of the TB model are obtained by fitting the tight-binding model to the density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Finally, we demonstrate that the DFT band structures and the tight-binding model band structures are in good agreement with each other at low energies around the Dirac point, thereby capturing the complete physics of the passivated edge bands. Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.

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