“…For example, II–VI semiconductor QDs (e.g., cadmium chalcogenides) are more ionic because of the large difference in the electronegativity between the constituent elements, whereas III–V semiconductors such as InP are more covalent in nature. − The surface states in relatively ionic II–VI QDs remain very shallow, whereas the III–V QDs possess deep surface states because of their covalent character. , For similar sized QDs (∼32 Å), the depth of the trap states in InP is 6.3 kJmol –1 below the conduction band, which is 25 times larger than that of the shallow trap states in II–VI CdSe QDs (0.25 kJ mol –1 ) . The degree of covalency also has a dramatic influence on the exciton radius and thus quantum confinement: III–V QDs are characterized by much larger exciton radius than the more ionic II–VI QDs (e.g., 9.6 nm for InP and 4.6 nm for CdSe). , In contrast to the ionic II–VI QDs, the covalent nature of the InP QDs makes it structurally more robust and relatively nontoxic by preventing the leakage of ions. , By virtue of these properties, the InP QDs have been recently proposed as an environmentally friendly material for energy-transfer applications. − Despite these several favorable characteristics, the use of InP QDs for photovoltaic applications is more rare compared to II–VI QDs , essentially because of a lesser understanding of the trap states of the former one.…”