2013
DOI: 10.1103/physrevb.88.125412
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electronic and optical gap renormalization in carbon nanotubes near a metallic surface

Abstract: Renormalization of quasiparticles and excitons in carbon nanotubes (CNTs) near a metallic surface has been studied within a many-body formalism using an embedding approach newly implemented in the GW and Bethe-Salpeter methods. The quasiparticle bandgap renormalization in semiconducting CNTs is found to scale as −1/(2ha), with ha the apparent nanotube height, and it can exceed half an eV. Also, the binding energy of excitons is reduced dramatically -by as much as 75%-near the surface. Compensation between quas… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
50
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
3
50
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, recent quasiparticle band structure calculations suggested a B2.9 eV bandgap, and hence a much larger exciton binding energy of B1.0 eV for free-standing SL MoS 2 (refs 39-42). The difference between our measurements and theoretical calculations is attributed to substrate screening effects, which has also been observed for semiconducting carbon nanotubes on metallic substrates 43,44 . The similarity of exciton binding energies obtained for MoS 2 and MoSe 2 both on graphitic substrates might indicate that the metallic substrate plays a dominant role in determining the exciton property for MoX 2 monolayers.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 42%
“…Furthermore, recent quasiparticle band structure calculations suggested a B2.9 eV bandgap, and hence a much larger exciton binding energy of B1.0 eV for free-standing SL MoS 2 (refs 39-42). The difference between our measurements and theoretical calculations is attributed to substrate screening effects, which has also been observed for semiconducting carbon nanotubes on metallic substrates 43,44 . The similarity of exciton binding energies obtained for MoS 2 and MoSe 2 both on graphitic substrates might indicate that the metallic substrate plays a dominant role in determining the exciton property for MoX 2 monolayers.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 42%
“…Image charge (IC) corrections 29,30 are included a posteriori to account for the polarization of the metallic substrate. Despite its simplicity, the IC approximation has proven successful to evaluate both the fundamental electronic 29 and optical 30,31 gaps in weakly coupled systems. The first-principles optical response (e 2 ) computed for the isolated 7-AGNR is shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24 To make calculations of interfacial light-matter interactions feasible, we have developed our own implementation 26,37 of the G 0 [W 0 + ∆W]-BSE method. [41][42][43][44][45] In this approach, the substrate is included only via its screening ∆W at both the quasiparticle G 0 W 0 and BSE level. This dramatically reduces the unit cell, number of electrons, and number of unoccupied bands required in the G 0 W 0 and BSE calculations, since the substrate is only included through its screening ∆W.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%