Erratum: Exciton binding energies in carbon nanotubes from two-photon photoluminescence [Phys. Rev. B.72, 241402(R) (2005)]

Abstract

The expression for the screened Coulomb potential V͑z , ; R͒ reported on p. 3 of our paper and in the related auxiliary material ͑see Ref. 31 of our paper͒ is incorrect. The correct Hamiltonian in a.u. reads:where ⑀ is the dielectric constant, D is the diameter of the tube, and ͑z , ͒ the relative coordinates of the electron and the hole on the tube surface. The exciton binding energies are calculated following the procedure described in the manuscript, and the new values are reported in the last column of Table I. The effective masses m * are computed within a tight-binding approach; 1 the dielectric constant ⑀, which is our fitting parameter, is 4.4± 0.3.These results for the exciton binding energies differ very little from the published ones ͑Ͻ0.05 eV͒, and the differences are well below the accuracy expected for these model calculations. We confirm our estimate for the exciton binding energies to be 0.3-0.4 eV for nanotubes with diameters between 6.8 Å and 9.0 Å.The main results of the paper, i.e., the experiments and the ab initio calculations, are not affected by this erratum. All conclusions remain valid.

Visualizing the Local Optical Response of Semiconducting Carbon Nanotubes to DNA-Wrapping

“…We found a strong red shift caused by DNA-wrapping of between 7 and 17 meV depending on the nanotube chirality. In the next step, TENOM was used to resolve PL variations along DNA-wrapped (6,5) and (6,4) nanotubes. Here two distinct emission bands are identified and assigned to emission from DNA-wrapped segments of the nanotube at E DNA and unwrapped segments at E 0 , distinguished by energy shifts of 18 meV for (6,5) and 30 meV for (6,4)-nanotubes, respectively.…”

“…Figure 2 presents the near-field PL measurement of a DNA-wrapped CoMoCAT (6,5) SWNT spin-coated on mica. Figure 2b represents the integrated intensity from 970 to 1030 nm covering the emission range of (6,5) nanotubes. 7 First, the center emission energies were obtained by fitting the spectra with a single Lorentzian line shape function shown in Figure 2c and d. Apparently, the emission energy varies between 1.259 and 1.241 eV along the nanotube, as indicated by the two red dashed lines in Figure 2c, while the average of all near-field spectra at 1.249 eV coincides with the value from confocal far-field measurements.…”

Photoluminescence Spectroscopy of Carbon Nanotube Bundles: Evidence for Exciton Energy Transfer

“…This is a well known phenomenon in biological systems, conjugated polymers, quantum wires, dots, and other lowdimensional systems [11,12,13,14,15], which we now clearly identify in nanotubes. We find that energy transfer is a major non-radiative relaxation channel for large (8,4), (7,6) and (9,4) SWNTs, with excitation matching eh11, eh22,eh33 of (6,5).…”

“…The investigation of the optical properties of nanotubes is now a most pursued research area [2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10], however this still focuses on individual tubes, in contrast with their natural occurrence in bundles. Furthermore, the luminescence quantum yield of individual SWNTs is very low and this hinders their applications in optoelectronics [3,9,10].…”

Effects of Dynamic Screening on Excitons in Metallic Carbon Nanotubes

“…Optical responses of carbon nanotubes are of great interest in fundamental physics and device applications since a small number of exciton states dominate them and, actually, strong excitonic responses are confirmed by experimental and theoretical researches [1,2]. The excitons in semiconducting carbon nanotubes have large binding energies of the order of hundreds of milielectron volts owing to the Coulomb interaction in one-dimensional systems.…”