2015
DOI: 10.1021/nn5070327
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Origins of Photoluminescence Decay Kinetics in CdTe Colloidal Quantum Dots

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
31
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
31
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Here we present an atomistic study of photoexcited hole and electron transfer from NC cores to molecular acceptors connected to the surface by either charge-delocalizing or chargeconfining linkers. We find that good agreement can be obtained with experimentally measured charge transfer times by assuming an Auger-mediated transfer mechanism, 7 similar to that recently employed to explain the charge dynamics observed in CQDs of different materials and configurations, including CdSe cores, 8 InAs/ZnSe core/shell, 9 CdTe cores, 10 and impurity-doped CdSe:Te structures. 9 First suggested by Frantsuzov and Marcus 7 as a possible explanation for blinking in CQDs, Auger-mediated transfer (AMT) 7-9 is a non-radiative decay process in which the transition energy of one charge carrier, e.g.…”
supporting
confidence: 86%
“…Here we present an atomistic study of photoexcited hole and electron transfer from NC cores to molecular acceptors connected to the surface by either charge-delocalizing or chargeconfining linkers. We find that good agreement can be obtained with experimentally measured charge transfer times by assuming an Auger-mediated transfer mechanism, 7 similar to that recently employed to explain the charge dynamics observed in CQDs of different materials and configurations, including CdSe cores, 8 InAs/ZnSe core/shell, 9 CdTe cores, 10 and impurity-doped CdSe:Te structures. 9 First suggested by Frantsuzov and Marcus 7 as a possible explanation for blinking in CQDs, Auger-mediated transfer (AMT) 7-9 is a non-radiative decay process in which the transition energy of one charge carrier, e.g.…”
supporting
confidence: 86%
“…The TOPO-CdSe/CdTe HNR device delivers slightly higher J sc compared to the TOPO-CdSe device. Considering that the photocurrent generated from single-component CdTe sensitizers is generally far lower than the single-component CdSe sensitizers presumably due to the recombination loss from the charge-carrier trapping 38 39 40 41 , higher J sc of the TOPO-CdSe/CdTe HNRs than that of the TOPO-CdSe NRs (with the same dimension of ~25 nm) cannot be explained simply by summing up the photocurrent generated from individual CdSe and CdTe components in HNRs. Due to the unique feature of type-II band offset in HNRs, where photoexcited electron-hole pairs are innately separated, the electron extraction process at the TiO 2 -sensitizer interface becomes more efficient with HNRs than with the single-component NRs 39 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is readily deduced that η col can be improved from the 1-octanethiol capping, as it has been well known that the thiol recapping of CdTe reduces the surface defect sites responsible for any unwanted recombination of photo-generated charge carriers 36 40 41 . This feature is also found in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed SEPM and DFT bulk wave functions exhibit a 99% overlap. 55 This well-benchmarked and accurate method has been used in the past to successfully predict a wide range of experimental features, including the extinction coefficients as a function of size in CdSe dots, 57 the size-dependent conduction and valence band edge energies in nanocrystals of different materials, 7 the exciton dynamics in CdTe 58 and InSb 59 colloidal dots, electron transfer rates in Cd chalcogenide nanocrystals, 60 Auger rates in CdSe nanocrystals, 61 and the electronic states properties of CdSe TPs. 30 Auger recombination times are calculated according to established procedures 61,62 with the difference that here a sizeand position-dependent dielectric constant ε in = ε(R), 53 was assumed within the TP (and ε out = 1, was assumed for its environment), instead of a regional screening with ε in = ε bulk and ε out = ε solvent .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%