Hagai Eshet1, Michael Grünwald, Eran Rabani. 1. School of Chemistry, The Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University , Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.
Abstract
The electronic structure of CdSe/CdS core/shell seeded nanorods of experimentally relevant size is studied using a combination of molecular dynamics and semiempirical pseudopotential techniques with the aim to address the transition from type-I to a quasi-type-II band alignment. The hole is found to be localized in the core region regardless of its size. The overlap of the electron density with the core region depends markedly on the size of the CdSe core. For small cores, we observe little overlap, consistent with type-II behavior. For large cores, significant core-overlap of a number of excitonic states can lead to type-I behavior. When electron-hole interactions are taken into account, the core-overlap is further increased. Our calculations indicate that the observed transition from type-II to type-I is largely due to simple volume effects and not to band alignment.
The electronic structure of CdSe/CdS core/shell seeded nanorods of experimentally relevant size is studied using a combination of molecular dynamics and semiempirical pseudopotential techniques with the aim to address the transition from type-I to a quasi-type-II band alignment. The hole is found to be localized in the core region regardless of its size. The overlap of the electron density with the core region depends markedly on the size of the CdSe core. For small cores, we observe little overlap, consistent with type-II behavior. For large cores, significant core-overlap of a number of excitonic states can lead to type-I behavior. When electron-hole interactions are taken into account, the core-overlap is further increased. Our calculations indicate that the observed transition from type-II to type-I is largely due to simple volume effects and not to band alignment.
Rod-shaped semiconductor nanocrystals[1] represent
a class of nanostructures in which
the optical and electronic properties can be tuned by changing the
composition, dimensions, and shape, offering an ideal model system
to study fundamental properties and in particular, the transition
between zero- and one-dimensional confinement. Recent developments
in the fabrication of core/shell seeded nanorods[2−6] have provided an additional knob by which the electrons/holes
can either be confined to the core region or the shell. This leads
in some cases to a desired intrinsic charge separation[7] useful for optocatalytic devices.[8,9] In
other cases, where both electrons and holes are confined to the same
region, the nanostructures show remarkable bright and stable fluorescence.[3,4] These unique features of semiconductor nanorod heterostructures
hold the promise to advance future light-harvesting devices.Perhaps the most studied of the core/shell nanorod structures is
that of CdSe core with a CdS shell.[2] The
hole is known to be localized at the CdSe core due to the large valence
band offsets between CdSe and CdS. On the other hand, the conduction
band offsets are quite small in the bulk, and thus, the electron can
either be localized at the core or at the shell, depending on the
size of the core, leading to a possible transition from a type-I to
a quasi-type-II band alignment. This has been the focus of numerous
experimental and theoretical studies.Early work using lifetime
measurements combined with model calculations
hinted to a flat band alignment in which case the electron is confined
to the CdS shell and the system is considered to be a quasi-type-II,
regardless of the size of the CdSe core.[10,11] More recent experiments based on scanning tunneling spectroscopy
(STS) analyzed by a simple effective mass model suggested a conduction
band offset of 0.3 eV, which in principle, would lead to a transition
from type-I to quasi-type-II band alignment as the size of the CdSe
core decreases.[12] This apparent controversy
has been addressed using multiexciton spectroscopy (MES) for nanorods
with different core sizes, confirming that a transition from type-I
(where the electron is localized at the core) to a quasi-type-II (where
it is localized at the shell) occurs for a core diameter of 2.8 nm.[13]Of course, a direct comparison between
the STS and MES measurements
must be done with care, as the former ignores the interactions between
the electron and the localized holes, and thus may lead to a more
diffuse electronic state compared to the excitonic state. In fact,
the magnitude of this effect has not been addressed so far and will
be discussed herein. To add more confusion, this debatable problem
has been revisited very recently using time-resolved photoluminescence
and transient absorption spectroscopies,[14] showing that the radiative recombination rate is independent of
the CdSe core size, consistent with a quasi-type-II band alignment
for all the system sizes studied (i.e., cores above 2 nm). Other recent
experimental studies have also revealed the spatial distribution of
the wave function[15,16] and long-lived exciton states
in CdSe/CdS dot-in-rod structures.[17]This controversy has also attracted numerous theoretical and computational
studies. Using first-principle calculations, Luo and Wang[18] have examined the band alignment of a CdSe/CdS
core/shell seeded nanorod (dimensions 4.3 × 15.5 nm) for a core
diameter of 3.4 nm, finding that the hole is localized inside the
CdSe core and the electron in the CdS shell. Because the core size
is larger than the expected transition (2.8 nm) it contradicts some
measurements and calls for a systematic study of the band alignment
with the core size.An alternative approach based on an effective
mass model was recently
developed by Shabaev et al.[19] for “giant”
CdSe/CdS core/shell nanostructures. They find that the Coulomb potential
created by strongly confined holes plays an important role in the
electron confinement, a point overlooked by previous studies. Shabaev
et al. also examined the effects of core size and CdSe/CdS conduction
band offset dependencies on the electronic properties of the nanorod.
They found that depending on the band offset, a transition from type-I
to quasi-type-II may occur. However, their approach does not provide
a quantitative prediction of the actual band offset in CdSe/CdS nanostructures.In this work, we calculate the electronic structure of CdSe/CdS
core/shell nanorods of 20 nm length. We consider two different values
of rod diameter, 4 and 6 nm, and a number of different core sizes
(2–4.5 nm). The rods are faceted, and the spherical CdSe core
was placed at one-third of the length of the rod. The configurations
used for the calculations are equilibrium structures relaxed with
molecular dynamics runs of 100 ps duration at a temperature of 300
K. For these runs, interactions between atoms were described by a
recently developed force-field,[20] which
has been shown to accurately describe CdSe/CdS heterostructures.[20,21] The final configuration was quenched to remove structural effects
of thermal fluctuations. (See Supporting Information for a detailed description of simulation methods.)The electronic
structure calculations of the seeded nanorods were
performed within the local version of the semiempirical pseudopotential
model,[22−24] where the local screened pseudopotentials were fitted
to reproduce the experimental bulk band structure, band gaps, effective
masses, and so forth. Furthermore, ligand potentials were used to
represent the passivation layer.[25] For
cadmium and selenium atoms, we have used the pseudopotential developed
for CdSe[25] while for sulfur atoms we have
fitted the bulk properties of CdS using the existing pseudopotential
for cadmium atoms.[26] The pseudopotential
for CdS gives a flat band alignment with CdSe in the bulk.[27] The filter-diagonalization technique[28] was then employed to filter nearly 40 single
particle states near the bands edge. These states were then used to
solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation. In order to compare the results
to the non-interacting case, we used only one hole state, such that
all excitations are associated with electron transitions. We verified
that including more hole states does not affect the electron density
but adds more excitations associated with hole transitions.In the left panels of Figure 1 we plot the
integrated projected valence (red circles) and conduction (blue circles)
densities onto the core for ∼20 levels below the valence band
maximum and ∼20 levels above the conduction band minimum. The
results are shown for a fixed shell size (4 × 20 nm) and for
core diameters that vary between 2 and 3 nm from top to bottom. The
inset in each panel shows the hole density of the top of the valence
band (red isosurface) and electron density of the two lowest states
of the conduction band (blue isosurface), all superimposed on the
nanorod frame.
Figure 1
Integrated projected hole (red circles) and electron (blue
circles)
densities onto the core (left panels) and the corresponding electron
density for the five lowest electron levels (right) for a 4 ×
20 nm CdSe/CdS seeded nanorod. The seed diameters (from top to bottom)
are 2, 2.5, and 3 nm. The dashed vertical line shows the position
of the center of the core and the solid black line superimposed in
the x-axis represents the core region, which is centered
at z = −6.67 nm. Insets (left panels) show
the hole (red) and electron (blue) density isosurfaces for the valence
band maximum and the two lowest conduction band states.
Integrated projected hole (red circles) and electron (blue
circles)
densities onto the core (left panels) and the corresponding electron
density for the five lowest electron levels (right) for a 4 ×
20 nm CdSe/CdS seeded nanorod. The seed diameters (from top to bottom)
are 2, 2.5, and 3 nm. The dashed vertical line shows the position
of the center of the core and the solid black line superimposed in
the x-axis represents the core region, which is centered
at z = −6.67 nm. Insets (left panels) show
the hole (red) and electron (blue) density isosurfaces for the valence
band maximum and the two lowest conduction band states.We find that for all valence states calculated,
the value of the
integrated projected density of the hole is close to unity, implying
that the hole is localized in the core with a small probability to
leak into the shell region. By contrast, the overlap of the lowest
conduction states with the core region depends markedly on core size.
For the smallest core considered here (2 nm), we find appreciable,
but minor, core-overlap of electron density only for the lowest conduction
state. All higher states are delocalized in the shell region. With
increasing core size, the core-overlap of the lowest state, as well
as of a number of higher states, increases markedly, as could be expected
from a transition from type-II to type-I band alignment.The
observed increase in core-overlap, however, is not primarily
caused by a substantial change in band alignment. In the right panels
of Figure 1, we plot the electron densities
of the five lowest conduction states, projected onto the nanorod axis.
As the core size increases, these densities change only slightly,
as can also be seen in the insets of the left panels of Figure 1. The biggest contribution to the observed increase
in core-overlap thus stems from the increasing core-volume itself.
This result indicates that the transition between type-I and type-II
behavior is a gradual one. The threshold value of core size at which
different behavior is observed will therefore likely depend on the
nature of the experimental measurement.We obtain similar results
for a thicker nanorod of the same length
(6 × 20 nm) with core sizes ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 nm (see Figure 2). Like in the case of the thinner nanorod, all
calculated valence states are highly localized in the core region.
Conduction states show an increase in core-overlap with increasing
core size. Comparing rods of different diameter, we find that the
overlap of the lowest conduction state with the core decreases as
the shell diameter increases, consistent with the decrease of the
conduction level with increasing nanorod diameter.
Figure 2
Same as Figure 1 but for a 6 × 20 nm
CdSe/CdS seeded nanorod with seed diameters (from top to bottom) of
2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 nm.
This quasi-particle
picture is consistent with recent low-temperature
STS measurements, suggesting that the electron is somewhat delocalized
in the nanorod with a notable amplitude in the core region.[12] However, a direct comparison of our predictions
with results from STS should be carried out with care. Because the
typical broadening in the scanning tip (∼100 meV) is larger
than the level spacing in the conduction band (∼30 meV), the
transmission is likely to occur through a combination of conduction
states rather than a single state. This makes a direct comparison
of the degree of localization quite hard. Yet, our results for the
lowest conduction state agree well with the experimental observation
that tunneling through the lowest conduction state diminishes as one
moves the tip away from the region of the core.[12]Same as Figure 1 but for a 6 × 20 nm
CdSe/CdS seeded nanorod with seed diameters (from top to bottom) of
2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 nm.The single-particle picture discussed in Figures 1 and 2 might be substantially
modified
when electron–hole interactions are taken into account.[19] In fact, most experimental studies on the band
alignment of CdSe/CdS core/shell nanorods are based on optical measurements
in which an exciton is formed and the magnitude of the electron–hole
interactions provides a measure of the degree of localization. This
is particularly important for situations when the hole is localized
at the core and can bind strongly the electron, thereby increasing
its overlap with the core.[19] Furthermore,
this effect will be strongest for small cores and might therefore
be expected to substantially shift the value of core size at which
the type-I/type-II transition is observed.Including the interactions
between the electron and the hole is
a subtle issue for nanorods, since perturbative techniques that work
well for spherical nanocrystals often fail in nanorods as a result
of small level spacing.[19,29] Here, we resort to
the Bethe–Salpeter approach[30] within
the static screening approximation, where excited states are obtained
by diagonalizing the Bethe–Salpeter equation (BSE) with an
exciton Hamiltonian give by[31]where |ϕt⟩ are the
single particle states with energies εt; a,b label virtual states and i,j label occupied states; W and V are the screened and bare Coulomb potentials, respectively.In Figure 3, we show the results for the
projected electron density onto the core obtained from the BSE (green
circles) for the 4 × 20 nm (left panel) and 6 × 20 nm (right
panel). For comparison, we also include the integrated projected valence
(red circles) and conduction (blue circles) densities onto the core
for the non-interacting case shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Figure 3
Projected electron densities
obtained from the BSE for a CdSe/CdS
seeded nanorod (green circles) along with the projected valence (red
circles) and conduction (blue circles) densities for the non-interacting
case. Left and right panels show results for 4 × 20 and 6 ×
20 nm rods, respectively. The core diameter (from top to bottom) is
2.5, 3, and 3.5 nm for the left panels and 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 nm for
the right panels. Corresponding insets show the hole density (red)
and the electron density (blue) for the two lowest excitonic states
associated.
Projected electron densities
obtained from the BSE for a CdSe/CdS
seeded nanorod (green circles) along with the projected valence (red
circles) and conduction (blue circles) densities for the non-interacting
case. Left and right panels show results for 4 × 20 and 6 ×
20 nm rods, respectively. The core diameter (from top to bottom) is
2.5, 3, and 3.5 nm for the left panels and 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 nm for
the right panels. Corresponding insets show the hole density (red)
and the electron density (blue) for the two lowest excitonic states
associated.Comparing the maximal
value of the electron projected density for
the lowest excitonic state, it is clear that including the electron–hole
interactions leads to an increase of the overlap of the electron wave
function with the core, as one might expect. A pronounced effect is
also seen for higher excited states. We find two additional excitonic
states that are highly localized near the core region (particularly
for the larger seeds). These states may well be associated with recent
reports on spatially separated long-lived exciton states in CdSe/CdS
nanorods.[17]The observed changes
in the degree of core-overlap are partly due
to marked changes in the shape of electronic densities. The insets
for each panel in Figure 3 show the hole density
of the top of the valence band (red isosurface) and electron density
of the two lowest states of the conduction band (blue isosurface),
all superimposed on the nanorod frame. Similar to the non-interacting
cases shown in the insets of Figures 1 and 2, the isosurface of the lowest state is centered
around the core region. The inclusion of electron–hole interactions
via the BSE leads to a somewhat tighter electron density around the
seed. The density of the second lowest state, however, is profoundly
modified from the non-interacting cases, where the electron is mostly
confined to the shell region away from the core. In the interacting
case, we observe a dumbbell-like shape of the isosurface, centered
around the core region.The general trend of increasing core-overlap
with core-size remains
unchanged by introducing electron–hole interactions. Like in
the non-interacting case, the main contribution to this increase is
the increasing core-volume itself, rather than a substantial shift
in band alignment. Furthermore, we do not observe a strong effect
of core-size on the strength of electron–hole interactions,
which would lead to increased localization of electrons in the core
primarily for small cores.In Table 1, we summarize the relevant energies
calculated for the relaxed nanorods configurations. The quasi-particle
gaps and the exciton energies for the seeded nanorods are slightly
lower (∼0.1 eV) compared to experimental results.[13] This is likely because the pseudopotential used
in the electronic structure calculations was optimized for a perfect
lattice configuration in the neat CdSe and CdS bulk systems, while
our calculations were performed for a relaxed heterostructure. The
small overall change in the band gap with the core size (roughly 0.2
eV going from Dcore = 2.5–4.5 nm)
is in agreement with the photoluminescence experiments.[13] The shift in the position of the hole level
is larger than that of the electron since the latter overlaps the
shell, which is kept fixed in this process. This is also consistent
with STS measurements.[12] We find that the
conduction band minimum is always below that of a neat CdSe NC (results
not shown here)[25] for all sizes studied,
confirming a very shallow band offset between the core and the shell
for the electrons.
Table 1
Energies, Lifetimes, and Oscillator
Strengths for CdSe/CdS Seeded Nanorodsa
Dshell
Dcore
Ev
Ec
Eg
Eex
ΔEex
τ (ns)
f
4
0
–6.60
–4.01
2.59
4
2
–6.38
–4.10
2.28
2.14
0.46
33
0.94
4
2.5
–6.31
–4.10
2.21
2.05
0.35
31
1.24
4
3
–6.25
–4.10
2.15
2.00
0.23
30
1.50
6
2.5
–6.35
–4.20
2.15
2.00
0.39
39
0.88
6
3.5
–6.25
–4.21
2.04
1.90
0.27
37
1.28
6
4.5
–6.15
–4.21
1.94
1.82
0.23
36
1.66
Calculated energies (in eV) for
the top of the valence band (Ev), bottom
of the conduction band (Ec), quasi-particle
band gap (Eg), first exciton energies
obtained within the BSE (Eex), and the
energy difference between the first exciton in the core-only and core/shell
structures (ΔEex) for CdSe/CdS core/shell
seeded nanorods of different dimensions (in nm).f = [(4meE0)/(3ℏ2e2)]μ2 is the oscillator strength for the lowest exciton transition
of energy E0 with transition dipole μ
and τ is the radiative lifetime (assuming that for the lowest
transition the index of refraction is close to 1).[32]
Calculated energies (in eV) for
the top of the valence band (Ev), bottom
of the conduction band (Ec), quasi-particle
band gap (Eg), first exciton energies
obtained within the BSE (Eex), and the
energy difference between the first exciton in the core-only and core/shell
structures (ΔEex) for CdSe/CdS core/shell
seeded nanorods of different dimensions (in nm).f = [(4meE0)/(3ℏ2e2)]μ2 is the oscillator strength for the lowest exciton transition
of energy E0 with transition dipole μ
and τ is the radiative lifetime (assuming that for the lowest
transition the index of refraction is close to 1).[32]Table 1 also shows the energy difference
between the first exciton in the core-only and core/shell structures
(ΔEex) and the radiative lifetime
(τ). These are also plotted in Figure 4. These quantities depend weakly on the length of the nanorod but
show a pronounced effect with the core diameter and rod diameter.
The calculated values are compared with the experimental results for
the shift in the absorption peak and the radiative lifetime,[15] a comparison that can serve to further assess
the accuracy of the model. The experimental energy shifts vary from
0.34 to 0.16 eV when the core size increases from 2.2 to 3.3 nm in
diameter. The theoretical values are slightly larger than the corresponding
experimental results. However, our model captures the general trends
with core size and the slope of ΔEex is similar. The comparison is complicated by the fact that experimental
values were obtained for nanorods with different (shell) diameters,
and no uncertainties are provided in ref (15) for the values of core diameter (or how these
values were determined). Assuming a standard deviation of 0.5 nm,
as quoted for the values of shell diameter, our results agree quantitatively
with experiments.
Figure 4
Plots of ΔEex (lower panel) and
τ (upper panel) versus core diameter. Blue symbols are experimental
results taken from ref (15). The shell thickness is 4.7 ± 0.5, 4.8 ± 0.5, 4.5 ±
0.5, and 4.1 ± 0.4 nm for the blue diamond, triangle, star, and
circle, respectively.
Comparing the radiative lifetimes to the experimental
values, we
find that in both cases τ decreases with increasing core diameter.
The lifetimes are very similar for the smaller cores (on the order
of 30 ns), while for the larger cores, we overestimate the lifetimes
by more than 50%. The discrepancy may indicate that for larger cores
there are defects located at the interface between the two semiconductors
that are not included in our model and may affect the slope of the
lifetime with core diameter. Alternatively, the experimental lifetimes
may include contributions from non-radiative decay, again not included
in the theory. The non-radiative decay is expected to be more significant
for large cores as the density of phonons changes with the core volume.Finally, Table 1 also provides the values
of the oscillator strength, which increases rapidly with the core
size and decreases with the nanorod diameter. The dependence on the
core and rod diameters can be explained in terms of the extent of
electron localization and the effect of the core and nanorod dimensions
on the overlap of the electron wave function with the core, as reported
above.Plots of ΔEex (lower panel) and
τ (upper panel) versus core diameter. Blue symbols are experimental
results taken from ref (15). The shell thickness is 4.7 ± 0.5, 4.8 ± 0.5, 4.5 ±
0.5, and 4.1 ± 0.4 nm for the blue diamond, triangle, star, and
circle, respectively.In summary, we have used a combination of molecular dynamics
and
electronic structure simulation techniques to study the electronic
properties of CdSe/CdS core/shell seeded nanorods. For all system
sizes considered here, we find strong localization of the hole in
the core of the nanorod. The overlap of conduction states with the
core region depends on core size. For small cores, minor overlap occurs
for the lowest conduction state only; for larger cores, sizable overlap
is observed for a number of conduction states. When electron–hole
interactions are taken into account, the core-overlap of conduction
states increases but the same trend with core size is observed, which
is consistent with experimental observations of a transition from
type-I to quasi-type-II behavior with decreasing core size. Our results
indicate that this transition is not primarily driven by a change
in band-alignment, but rather by the change in core volume itself.
Authors: J Müller; J M Lupton; P G Lagoudakis; F Schindler; R Koeppe; A L Rogach; J Feldmann; D V Talapin; H Weller Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Luigi Carbone; Concetta Nobile; Milena De Giorgi; Fabio Della Sala; Giovanni Morello; Pierpaolo Pompa; Martin Hytch; Etienne Snoeck; Angela Fiore; Isabella R Franchini; Monica Nadasan; Albert F Silvestre; Letizia Chiodo; Stefan Kudera; Roberto Cingolani; Roman Krahne; Liberato Manna Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Prashant K Jain; Debraj Ghosh; Roi Baer; Eran Rabani; A Paul Alivisatos Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-05-07 Impact factor: 11.205