“…Evidently, the spectral features observed by UPPS in the case of Cu, Cu 2 O, and CuO shown in Figure a–c, respectively, do not coincide with the duo of higher energy maxima at 2.46 and 2.3 eV in Figure a,b, which are directly related to the strained Cu 3 N, which has larger direct and indirect energy band gaps compared to bulk-relaxed Cu 3 N. Before elaborating further, we ought to mention that the occurrence of strained Cu 3 N at the surface of Cu 3 N layers is consistent with the findings of Majumdar et al who observed that surface oxidation gave rise to strained Cu 3 N. This is consistent with the fact that CuO has a monoclinic crystal structure and a lattice constant a = 4.6837 Å, which is larger than the lattice constant of bulk-relaxed cubic Cu 3 N, i.e., a = 3.8 Å, and the CuO/Cu 3 N heterojunction will be strained; similarly, Cu 2 O has a cubic crystal structure and a lattice constant of 4.27 Å, so the Cu 2 O/Cu 3 N heterojunction is also expected to be strained. In contrast, Cu and Cu 3 N have lattice constants of 3.6 and 3.8 Å, respectively, so the Cu/Cu 3 N metal–semiconductor junction is not expected to be strained to the same extent . Nevertheless, for such large lattice mismatches, the critical layer thickness is expected to be low and the Cu 3 N will be relaxed rather than strained when its thickness exceeds a few tens of nanometers.…”