4.6 Article

Water adsorption on the P-rich GaP(100) surface: optical spectroscopy from first principles

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aaaf38

关键词

density functional theory; water; gallium phosphide; reflection anisotropy spectroscopy

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom
  2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin fur Materialien und Energie
  3. German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina [LPDS 2015-09]
  4. EPSRC [EP/P022596/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contact of water with semiconductors typically changes its surface electronic structure by oxidation or corrosion processes. A detailed knowledge-or even control of-the surface structure is highly desirable, as it impacts the performance of opto-electronic devices from gas-sensing to energy conversion applications. It is also a prerequisite for density functional theory-based modelling of the electronic structure in contact with an electrolyte. The P-rich GaP(100) surface is extraordinary with respect to its contact with gas-phase water, as it undergoes a surface reordering, but does not oxidise. We investigate the underlying changes of the surface in contact with water by means of theoretically derived reflection anisotropy spectroscopy (RAS). A comparison of our results with experiment reveals that a water-induced hydrogen-rich phase on the surface is compatible with the boundary conditions from experiment, reproducing the optical spectra. We discuss potential reaction paths that comprise a water-enhanced hydrogen mobility on the surface. Our results also show that computational RAS-required for the interpretation of experimental signatures-is feasible for GaP in contact with water double layers. Here, RAS is sensitive to surface electric fields, which are an important ingredient of the Helmholtz-layer. This paves the way for future investigations of RAS at the semiconductor-electrolyte interface.

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