1986
DOI: 10.1016/0022-0728(86)80571-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A potential- and charge-consistent model for the adsorption dependence of the semiconductor flatband potential

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our previous applications of eqs 9 and 10 to monovalent species adsorption onto CdSe, the maximum slope of the flatband potential which could be realistically generated 28 was substantially less than the 0.12 V/log([CN -] we observe with cyanide addition. Therefore, an adsorption shift of flatband potential does not appear to be consistent with the observed effect of cyanide on cadmium chalcogenide flatband potential.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In our previous applications of eqs 9 and 10 to monovalent species adsorption onto CdSe, the maximum slope of the flatband potential which could be realistically generated 28 was substantially less than the 0.12 V/log([CN -] we observe with cyanide addition. Therefore, an adsorption shift of flatband potential does not appear to be consistent with the observed effect of cyanide on cadmium chalcogenide flatband potential.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The extent of flatband variation due to adsorption of monovalent anion, J -, in solution at concentration [J -], will vary with the total number of available adsorption sites on the surface, Γ sat , and θ, the relative portion of these sites that are filled (0 e θ e 1). Given an ion-surface adsorption interaction parameter, f, and a capacity per unit area of the Helmholtz double layer, C H , then at temperature, T, the flatband potential variation with the log of solution concentration is given by 28 where F and R are the Faraday and gas constants. From eq 9, the maximum slope, -dV fb /d ln[J -], is given at 50% of the maximum surface coverage (at θ ) 0.5):…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is generally assumed that in the case of monovalent species a Nernstian slope for the potential drop in the Helmholtz layer, Df H , at flat band is ln(10)RT/F (59 mV pH À1 at 298.15 K). 44 However, the slope of 59 mV pH À1 and the linearity of the trend in Df H(FB) are not always exhibited; some experimental data and models show slopes in U F(FB) of 61 mV pH À1 , 16 65 mV pH À1 45 and 73 mV pH À1 , 16 while a theoretical study shows non-linear trends in U F(FB) with bulk pH 44 which are caused by non-linear trends in Df H(FB) . Non-linear trends are understood to be a consequence of surface coverage dependent lateral interactions between adsorbed species; in these situations, slopes in Df H as low as 19-38 mV pH À1 41 and 29 mV pH À1 44 have been reported for monovalent species, although the experimental method suggests that the semiconductor was not at the flat band potential during the measurements and hence these slopes are not necessarily relevant to the present discussion.…”
Section: Potential Drop Across the Helmholtz Layermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet another tactic involves perturbing the electrostatics at the semiconductor-electrolyte interface by adsorbing (or even chemically attaching) electron donors or acceptors on the semiconductor surface [237]. In favorable cases, this increases the band bending at the interface by thus introducing a fixed countercharge of opposite polarity (negative for a n-type semiconductor) at the junction.…”
Section: 8mentioning
confidence: 99%