2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2004.12.055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intermixing in self-assembled InAs quantum dot formation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We observe that has a temperature-activated behavior, increasing strongly above a critical temperature, which depends on the InAs growth rate. Since negligible intermixing has been reported for low growth rates 10,20 we attribute this strong increase to In desorption. In these conditions, the growth rate R G can be expressed as R G = R dep − R des .…”
Section: Structural Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…We observe that has a temperature-activated behavior, increasing strongly above a critical temperature, which depends on the InAs growth rate. Since negligible intermixing has been reported for low growth rates 10,20 we attribute this strong increase to In desorption. In these conditions, the growth rate R G can be expressed as R G = R dep − R des .…”
Section: Structural Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…For a long time, the only known method for the production of epitaxially grown zerodimensional system was the strain-induced method, based on lattice mismatch. Presently, the most used technique is the lattice-mismatched technique by the Stranski-Krastanov mode [1][2][3][4][5]. QDs, such as InAs nanocluster prepared on GaAs surface, are the oldest known system.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 It was reported that when QDs are grown at approximately 500°C; a large composition gradient from GaAs to InAs due to the intermixing effect is formed up to ϳ3 nm above the wetting layer. 17 In such a situation, electrons are pushed toward the apex of the QDs by the potential gradient and the effective confinement size of the electrons in the QDs becomes smaller than that determined by SEM measurements, as schematically shown in the inset of Fig. 3.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%