1962
DOI: 10.1016/0038-1101(62)90115-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experiments on Ge-GaAs heterojunctions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
225
0
2

Year Published

1997
1997
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,044 publications
(248 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
8
225
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Our band alignments can be compared directly to the prediction of Anderson's electron affinity rule, which states that the conduction band offset (A£ c ) would then be given by the difference in electron affinity of the two semiconductors, while the valence band offset (A£ v ) is given by the difference between the band-gap difference and the conduction band offset [31]. The electron affinity of the CuGaS 2 is about 4.1 eV [32], for the CuAlSe 2 is 3.8 eV [32], and for the CdS, ZnSe and ZnS are 4.3 eV [33], 4.09 eV [33], and 3.9 eV [34], respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our band alignments can be compared directly to the prediction of Anderson's electron affinity rule, which states that the conduction band offset (A£ c ) would then be given by the difference in electron affinity of the two semiconductors, while the valence band offset (A£ v ) is given by the difference between the band-gap difference and the conduction band offset [31]. The electron affinity of the CuGaS 2 is about 4.1 eV [32], for the CuAlSe 2 is 3.8 eV [32], and for the CdS, ZnSe and ZnS are 4.3 eV [33], 4.09 eV [33], and 3.9 eV [34], respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…II-VI/Zn 3 P 2 band offsets-Measurement versus prediction Figure 5 compares the measured band alignments for the II-VI/Zn 3 P 2 heterojunctions with the values predicted by various approaches including the Anderson electron affinity (EA) model, 16 an interface dipole model, 44 and available DFT calculations. 45 The plotted Zn 3 P 2 CBM was fixed at À3.6 eV with respect to the vacuum level, based on a reported value of the Zn 3 P 2 electron affinity (v).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notably, the barrier heights measured for the heterojunctions are not in good agreement with those predicted from Anderson band alignment theory based on the electron affinities of the materials used to form the junction. 16 This disagreement is not unexpected because the actual band offsets often deviate from the ideal values. 17 To understand the fundamental limitations on the attainable barrier heights of Zn 3 P 2 heterojunction solar cells, we describe herein band alignment measurements on heterovalent interfaces composed of n-type II-VI semiconductors grown on the Zn 3 P 2 (001) surface.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 The band alignment between two semiconductors is believed to be controlled in part by charge transfer across the interface which results in the creation of interface dipoles. This dipole modifies the barrier heights given by the electron affinity rule, 24 which is basically the difference between the electronegativities screened by a factor which depends on the electronic component of the dielectric constant. In the case of HfO 2 , the bulk CNL lies above the Fermi level of the p-doped silicon substrate (in other words the electronegativity of HfO 2 is smaller than that of the silicon substrate).…”
Section: G Electrostatic Potential Across the Gate Stackmentioning
confidence: 99%