4.6 Article

Effect of electric bias on trapping and release of excitons in GaN/(Al,Ga)N quantum wells

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.035429

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Research Agency via IXTASE project [ANR-20-CE30-0032]
  2. Occtanie Region through the Quantum Technology Challenge grant
  3. French National Research Agency via LABEX GANEXT project
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-20-CE30-0032] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that excitons in wide GaN/(Al, Ga)N quantum wells are made spatially indirect by a built-in electric field. The density of excitons in traps can be controlled by an external electric bias. Negative bias deepens the trapping potential, while positive bias releases the excitons.
A giant built-in electric field in the growth direction makes excitons in wide GaN/(Al, Ga)N quantum wells spatially indirect even in the absence of any external bias. Significant densities of indirect excitons can accumulate in electrostatic traps imprinted in the quantum well plane by a thin metal layer deposited on top of the heterostructure. By jointly measuring spatially resolved photoluminescence and photo-induced current, we demonstrate that exciton density in the trap can be controlled via an external electric bias, which is capable of altering the trap depth. Application of a negative bias deepens the trapping potential, but does not lead to any additional accumulation of excitons in the trap. This is due to exciton dissociation instigated by the lateral electric field at the electrode edges. The resulting carrier losses are detected as an increased photocurrent and reduced photoluminescence intensity. By contrast, application of a positive bias washes out the electrode-induced trapping potential. Thus, excitons get released from the trap and recover free propagation in the plane that we reveal by spatially resolved photoluminescence.

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