4.6 Article

Electronic structure and photocatalytic band offset of few-layer GeP2

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 5, 期 42, 页码 22146-22155

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7ta07107h

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [NRF-2015R1D1A1A01057606]
  2. Jeonju University
  3. National Institute of Supercomputing and Network/Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information [KSC-2016-C2-0038]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1D1A1A01057606] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on a sophisticated crystal structure prediction method, we propose two-dimensional (2D) GeP2 in the tetragonal (T) phase never observed for other group IV-V compounds. The bulk of 2D GeP2 is more stable than both 2D orthogonal (O) and three-dimensional pyrite (P) phases that have been experimentally observed for group IV-V compounds. According to our calculations of phonon dispersion relations and elastic constants, as well as ab initio molecular dynamics simulation, monolayers of both the T and O phases (penta-GeP2 and O-GeP2, respectively) are dynamically, mechanically, and thermally stable. In addition, our HSE06 calculation shows that these monolayers are semiconductors with band gaps in the visible region. Among the various stacking patterns of their bilayers, specific ones are identified to be most stable, which are still semiconductors with band gaps redshifted in the visible region. Different from the case of their bulk, few-layers of O-GeP2 are more stable than those of pentaGeP2 up to a pentalayer. Furthermore, band offset with respect to the Fermi levels of appropriate halfreactions shows that both n-type few-layer penta-GeP2 and O-GeP2 can be useful in photocatalyzed CO2 splitting to CO as well as in photocatalyzed water splitting, specifically under acidic conditions.

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