Some cohesive energy features of tetrahedral semiconductors

Aresti, A.; Garbato, L.; Rucci, A.

doi:10.1016/0022-3697(84)90043-x

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 2) may be attributed to use of older values of the gaseous atom formation enthalpies in the calculations. For example, Aresti et al 36 use 302.5 (for As(g)), 332.2 (for P(g)), and 196.6 (for Te(g)) in place of the current values 4 This is 95% of the reported value of −2675.2 kJ mol −1 , and it is not unreasonable to add a standard 5% to the estimated value to account for the extra stability of the combined material.…”

Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cohesive Energies and Enthalpies: Complexities, Confusions, and Corrections

Glasser

Sheppard

2016

Inorg. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cohesive or atomization energy of an ionic solid is the energy required to decompose the solid into its constituent independent gaseous atoms at 0 K, while its lattice energy, Upot, is the energy required to decompose the solid into its constituent independent gaseous ions at 0 K. These energies may be converted into enthalpies at a given temperature by the addition of the small energies corresponding to integration of the heat capacity of each of the constituents. While cohesive energies/enthalpies are readily calculated by thermodynamic summing of the formation energies/enthalpies of the constituents, they are also currently intensively studied by computational procedures for the resulting insight on the interactions within the solid. In supporting confirmation of their computational results, authors generally quote "experimental" cohesive energies which are, in fact, simply the thermodynamic sums. However, these "experimental" cohesive energies are quoted in many different units, atom-based or calorimetric, and on different bases such as per atom, per formula unit, per oxide ion, and so forth. This makes comparisons among materials very awkward. Additionally, some of the quoted values are, in fact, lattice energies which are distinctly different from cohesive energies. We list large numbers of reported cohesive energies for binary halides, chalcogenides, pnictogenides, and Laves phase compounds which we bring to the same basis, and identify a number as incorrectly reported lattice energies. We also propose that cohesive energies of higher-order ionic solids may also be estimated as thermodynamic enthalpy sums.

show abstract

Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cohesive Energies and Enthalpies: Complexities, Confusions, and Corrections

Glasser

Sheppard

2016

Inorg. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a previous work [11], we proposed a simple relation for dielectric constant of chalcopyrite structured solids in terms of the product of ionic charges and nearest neighbour distance by the following relation, Sirdeshmukh et al [21] found that substantially reduced ionic charges must be All experimental values are from [13]. …”

Section: Theory Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aresti et al [13] have studied the cohesive energy of zinc blende solids and proposed an empirical relation for cohesive energy in terms of nearest neighbour distance (d) as follows,…”

Section: Theory Results and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohesive energy of zincblende (AIIIBV and AIIBVI) structured solids

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Aresti et al [29] have studied the cohesive energy of zincblende solids and proposed an empirical relation for cohesive energy in terms of nearest-neighbor distance d. According to them the cohesive energy may be express by the following relation:…”

Section: Cohesive Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical model for bulk modulus and cohesive energy of rocksalt‐, zincblende‐ and chalcopyrite‐structured solids

Verma

2009

Physica Status Solidi (b)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we present empirical models for ground‐state properties such as bulk modulus and cohesive energy of rocksalt‐, zincblende‐ and chalcopyrite‐structured solids. The bulk moduli and cohesive energy of these solids exhibit a linear relationship when plotted on a log–log scale versus the nearest‐neighbor distance d (Å), but fall on different straight lines according to the product of valence electrons of the solids. We have applied the proposed relations to alkali halides, alkaline‐earth chalcogenides, binary and ternary tetrahedral semiconductors and found a better agreement with experimental data as compared to the values evaluated by earlier researchers. (© 2009 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

show abstract

Some cohesive energy features of tetrahedral semiconductors

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

Cohesive Energies and Enthalpies: Complexities, Confusions, and Corrections

Cohesive Energies and Enthalpies: Complexities, Confusions, and Corrections

Cohesive energy of zincblende (AIIIBV and AIIBVI) structured solids

An empirical model for bulk modulus and cohesive energy of rocksalt‐, zincblende‐ and chalcopyrite‐structured solids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About