Stijn O M Hinterding1,2, Sander J W Vonk1,2, Elleke J van Harten1, Freddy T Rabouw1,2. 1. Soft Condensed Matter, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 1, 3584CC Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Inorganic Chemistry and Catalysis, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Bright and fast fluorescence makes semiconductor nanocrystals, or quantum dots (QDs), appealing for applications ranging from biomedical research to display screens. However, a few percent of their fluorescence intensity is surprisingly slow. Research into this "delayed emission" has been scarce, despite undesired consequences for some applications and potential opportunities for others. Here, we characterize the dynamics of delayed emission exhibited by individual CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs and correlate these with changes in the emission spectrum. The delayed-emission intensity from a single QD fluctuates strongly during an experiment of several minutes and is thus not always "on", implying that control over delayed emission may be possible. Periods of bright delayed emission correlate with red-shifted emission spectra. This behavior is consistent with exciton polarization by fluctuating electric fields due to diffusing surface charges, which have been known to cause spectral diffusion in QDs. Our findings thus provide a stepping stone for future efforts to control delayed emission.
Bright and fast fluorescence makes semiconductor nanocrystals, or quantum dots (QDs), appealing for applications ranging from biomedical research to display screens. However, a few percent of their fluorescence intensity is surprisingly slow. Research into this "delayed emission" has been scarce, despite undesired consequences for some applications and potential opportunities for others. Here, we characterize the dynamics of delayed emission exhibited by individual CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs and correlate these with changes in the emission spectrum. The delayed-emission intensity from a single QD fluctuates strongly during an experiment of several minutes and is thus not always "on", implying that control over delayed emission may be possible. Periods of bright delayed emission correlate with red-shifted emission spectra. This behavior is consistent with exciton polarization by fluctuating electric fields due to diffusing surface charges, which have been known to cause spectral diffusion in QDs. Our findings thus provide a stepping stone for future efforts to control delayed emission.
Research and development for
over 25 years[1] has resulted in high-quality
semiconductor nanocrystals (or quantum dots, QDs) of various material
compositions that produce bright fluorescence useful in display screens,
lighting, bioimaging, quantum optics, and other applications.[2] Nevertheless, some of their key fundamental properties
remain poorly understood. For example, while the excited state of
a QD usually lives no longer than a few tens of nanoseconds before
it decays by emitting a photon, sometimes emission takes orders of
magnitude longer.[3−15] This slow emission—or “delayed emission”—is
responsible for on the order of 10% of the fluorescence from various
types of QDs, including CdSe/CdS/CdZnS/ZnS core/multishells,[10] Cu-dopedCdSe,[13] CuInS2,[13] and lead–halide perovskites.[14] It is typically ascribed to trapping and detrapping
of excited charge carriers, which renders the excited state of the
QD temporarily nonemissive. The prolonged excited-state lifetimes
can be beneficial for the use of QDs in photocatalysis and photovoltaics.
On the other hand, the occurrence of (temporarily) nonemissive excited
states may have negative implications for the use of QDs as laser
gain medium[16] or as Förster resonance
energy transfer (FRET) donors.[7] Furthermore,
delayed-emission trapping has been tentatively linked to fluorescence
blinking of single QDs[3−6,8−11,13,15] and may lower the threshold for fluorescence
saturation.[6,17]Most of what we know about
delayed emission has until now come
from ensemble-scale experiments. Generally, the decay of delayed emission
following pulsed excitation is characterized by a long, power-law-like
slope,[3,10−13,15] indicating broadly distributed rates of charge-carrier detrapping.
(De)trapping of charge carriers likely happens through tunneling,
as the rates are temperature-independent.[11,13,18,19] The trapping
process is thought to occur from the lowest-energy exciton state.[3−6,8−15] Based on the spectrum of delayed emission on the ensemble scale,
the lowest-energy exciton is likely restored upon charge-carrier detrapping,
followed by radiative recombination.[10,12−14] However, much is still unknown regarding delayed emission. For example,
ensemble-scale experiments do not provide information about variations
between QDs or dynamic fluctuations that likely underly the distributed
dynamics of delayed emission. Moreover, ensemble-averaging masks possible
correlations between the fluorescence intensity, dynamics, and spectrum,
which could otherwise establish the mechanisms of trapping/detrapping
and the proposed link between delayed emission and blinking.Here, we elucidate the mechanisms underlying delayed emission in
individual CdSe/CdS core/shell QDs, using a combination of single-QD
spectroscopy and time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC). Low-dark-count
detectors allow us to measure the photoluminescence (PL) decay dynamics
of single QDs up to 1 μs after excitation with negligible (<20
photons/s) background. All single QDs measured have prompt PL lifetimes
of approximately 30–50 ns but also show delayed emission on
time scales until 1 μs. Surprisingly, the intensity of delayed
emission shows strong temporal fluctuations, seemingly uncorrelated
to fluctuations of the total emission intensity (i.e., blinking).
We find that the QD emission spectrum is red-shifted and broadened
during time periods of high delayed-emission intensity. These spectral
changes are reminiscent of the response of a QD to an external electric
field, due to the quantum-confined Stark effect (QCSE).[20−30] However, the QCSE alone cannot explain the very slow dynamics of
delayed emission. We propose that, additionally, polarization of the
exciton by the spontaneously fluctuating electric field facilitates
temporary trapping of charge carriers, as was previously observed
for applied external electric fields.[23] Our results establish delayed emission as yet another property of
QDs with pronounced temporal fluctuations, besides the total fluorescence
intensity (i.e., blinking) and their spectrum (i.e., spectral diffusion).We synthesized CdSe/CdS core/shell quantum dots (QDs) with an ensemble
emission peak at 628 nm (Figure S1) and
a diameter of 8.4 ± 1.7 nm (mean ± standard deviation; Figure S2) following a procedure based on the
work of Chen et al.[31] The PL decay dynamics
of a typical single CdSe/CdS QD from our batch (Figure a,b) are similar to those of the ensemble
(Figure S3). The decay is approximately
exponential on the first 50 ns due to “prompt” radiative
recombination of the exciton, i.e., directly following photoexcitation.
The slower nonexponential tail is denoted “delayed emission”
and is typically ascribed to temporary trapping of one (or both) charge
carriers from the band-edge state, followed by detrapping and subsequent
radiative recombination of the exciton.[3−5,8−15] All 10 QDs studied in detail showed nonexponential delayed emission,
consistent with previous studies,[3] although
the relative intensity of delayed compared to prompt emission varied
between QDs (see Extended Data, Figures E1–10). Distributed dynamics are thus not only an ensemble-averaged characteristic
of delayed emission but also an intrinsic property of individual QDs.
Figure 1
(a,b)
Normalized PL decay curves of a single CdSe/CdS core/shell
QD, displayed on (a) semilogarithmic and (b) log–log scale.
The dashed lines are a biexponential fit to the data up to a delay
time of 100 ns. Prompt and delayed emission are indicated with blue
and red shading, respectively. (c) Total photoluminescence (PL) intensity
(Itot) trace of an individual quantum
dot (QD), constructed with a 10 ms bin size. Itot switches between a state of high and a state of lower intensity
labeled “ON” (blue arrow) and “GRAY” (red
arrow). The background intensity is 0.2 cts/10 ms. (d) Delayed-PL
intensity (Idel, defined as the number
of photons detected ≥200 ns after a laser pulse) trace of the
same QD, binned at 10 ms. Idel fluctuates
between low (3 cts/10 ms) and high (∼25 cts/10 ms) values.
(e) Distributions of Idel, corresponding
to (red) bins directly preceding an ON → GRAY switch (i.e.,
selecting all bins i for which Itot, – Itot, ≤ −70 cts/10 ms), (blue)
bins directly following an GRAY → ON switch (i.e., Itot, – Itot, ≥ 70 cts/10 ms),
and (black) all 10 ms time bins during which the QD is ON (Itot, ≥ 100 cts/10 ms).
(a,b)
Normalized PL decay curves of a single CdSe/CdS core/shell
QD, displayed on (a) semilogarithmic and (b) log–log scale.
The dashed lines are a biexponential fit to the data up to a delay
time of 100 ns. Prompt and delayed emission are indicated with blue
and red shading, respectively. (c) Total photoluminescence (PL) intensity
(Itot) trace of an individual quantum
dot (QD), constructed with a 10 ms bin size. Itot switches between a state of high and a state of lower intensity
labeled “ON” (blue arrow) and “GRAY” (red
arrow). The background intensity is 0.2 cts/10 ms. (d) Delayed-PL
intensity (Idel, defined as the number
of photons detected ≥200 ns after a laser pulse) trace of the
same QD, binned at 10 ms. Idel fluctuates
between low (3 cts/10 ms) and high (∼25 cts/10 ms) values.
(e) Distributions of Idel, corresponding
to (red) bins directly preceding an ON → GRAY switch (i.e.,
selecting all bins i for which Itot, – Itot, ≤ −70 cts/10 ms), (blue)
bins directly following an GRAY → ON switch (i.e., Itot, – Itot, ≥ 70 cts/10 ms),
and (black) all 10 ms time bins during which the QD is ON (Itot, ≥ 100 cts/10 ms).Under continued photoexcitation, the CdSe/CdS QD
discussed here
blinks between a high-intensity state producing 137 photon counts/10
ms and a lower-intensity state with 42 photon counts/10 ms (Figure c). The characteristics
of these states (see Extended Data, Figures E1–10) are consistent with an “ON” state, in which the QD
exhibits a PL quantum yield (QY) of unity,[32] and a “GRAY” state, in which the QD is momentarily
charged, leading to an increased radiative decay rate but a reduced
PLQY because of competition with nonradiative Auger decay processes.[33,34]In Figure d, we
show the delayed-emission intensity, Idel, over the same measurement period of 30 s as shown in Figure c. For this analysis, we classify
a photon as “delayed” when it is detected more than
200 ns after the laser pulse. As the PL lifetime of the ON states
of our QDs is 30–50 ns, a threshold of 200 ns effectively discards
>99% of the exponential prompt emission while accepting enough
delayed
photons to allow further analysis. We observe, surprisingly, that
the delayed-emission intensity fluctuates strongly, between a low
value of ∼3 counts/10 ms (due to background fluorescence and
unrejected prompt emission; Figure S4)
to high values of >40 counts/10 ms.At first glance, it is
difficult to identify correlations between
the fluctuations in Idel and fluctuations
in Itot: during ON periods, the QD can
exhibit either low or high Idel (cyan
and purple regions in Figure c,d, respectively). Similarly, periods in which the QD is
blinking between the ON and GRAY states can exhibit either low or
high Idel (green and yellow regions in Figure c,d, respectively).
More quantitative statistical analysis (Figures e and S5) does
not reveal correlations between Idel and Itot either, despite recent proposals for a relationship
between delayed emission and blinking.[3−6,8−11,13,15] We have to stress, however, the gap in time scales between our measurements
of delayed emission (between 200–1000 ns after laser excitation)
and our ability to resolve blinking (10 ms). We might in fact miss
the rarest and slowest delayed-emission events that are the most relevant
for blinking. Only when a charge carrier is trapped for ≫1
μs would this effectively charge the QD and thereby lead to
an ON → GRAY switch observable in the blinking trace of Figure c. Ensemble-scale
experiments have provided evidence for such very slow detrapping processes.[10,11,13,15]Ensemble-scale time-resolved emission spectroscopy (TRES)
on our
CdSe/CdS QDs dispersed in toluene yields results consistent with previous
studies:[10,12−14] the spectrum emitted
over the first 10 ns after photoexcitation (blue in Figure a) is nearly identical to the
delayed-emission spectrum recorded from 1250 to 2000 ns (purple in Figure a). This confirms
that delayed emission of our QDs involves recombination of free, rather
than trapped charge carriers. In contrast, emission involving trapped
charges would yield a broad spectrum red-shifted from the lowest-energy
exciton recombination, due to strong electron–phonon coupling.[35−37] On intermediate time scales, between 50 and 400 ns, the spectrum
is red-shifted and broadened (Figure a,b). This behavior, matching previous TRES measurements
on Cd-based QDs,[10,38] is attributed in the literature
to polydispersity in the QD size and corresponding variations in the
prompt radiative decay rate.[39] As we will
show below, spectral diffusion likely contributes to this red-shift
as well.
Figure 2
(a) Time-resolved PL spectra
of an ensemble of CdSe/CdS QDs dispersed in toluene, obtained
by integrating the PL spectrum over delay times of 0–10 ns
(blue), 170–210 ns (green), 340–400 ns (yellow), 750–1000
ns (red), 1250–2000 ns (purple), and 0–2000 ns (black).
(b) PL peak positions, obtained by fitting spectra with a two-sided
Gaussian (see Supporting Information, Section S2 for details). The dashed line is the peak position of the
early time spectrum (0–10 ns), which is set to ΔEpeak = 0. Error bars correspond to ±1 standard
error of the fit. (c) Distribution of delayed-emission intensity during
simultaneous TCSPC and spectral measurements on the same single QD
discussed in Figure . For this analysis, we selected only periods during which the QD
was ON (i.e., total intensity Itot >
75
cts/18 ms on the single-photon detector). (d) Single-QD PL spectra
as a function of Idel, obtained by selecting
periods of a 296 s experiment during which the QD exhibited delayed-emission
intensity (colored regions indicated in panel (c)) of Idel < 3 cts/18 ms (blue), 3 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel < 5 cts/18 ms (cyan), 5 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel < 7 cts/18 ms (green), 7 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel < 10 cts/18 ms (yellow), 10 cts/18 ms
≤ Idel < 13 cts/18 ms (orange),
and 13 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel (red).
(e) PL peak position and (f) full-width-at-half-maximum as a function
of our selection of Idel, displayed here
as the mean ± standard deviation of Lorentzian fits to the selected
18-ms-integrated spectral frames.
(a) Time-resolved PL spectra
of an ensemble of CdSe/CdS QDs dispersed in toluene, obtained
by integrating the PL spectrum over delay times of 0–10 ns
(blue), 170–210 ns (green), 340–400 ns (yellow), 750–1000
ns (red), 1250–2000 ns (purple), and 0–2000 ns (black).
(b) PL peak positions, obtained by fitting spectra with a two-sided
Gaussian (see Supporting Information, Section S2 for details). The dashed line is the peak position of the
early time spectrum (0–10 ns), which is set to ΔEpeak = 0. Error bars correspond to ±1 standard
error of the fit. (c) Distribution of delayed-emission intensity during
simultaneous TCSPC and spectral measurements on the same single QD
discussed in Figure . For this analysis, we selected only periods during which the QD
was ON (i.e., total intensity Itot >
75
cts/18 ms on the single-photon detector). (d) Single-QD PL spectra
as a function of Idel, obtained by selecting
periods of a 296 s experiment during which the QD exhibited delayed-emission
intensity (colored regions indicated in panel (c)) of Idel < 3 cts/18 ms (blue), 3 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel < 5 cts/18 ms (cyan), 5 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel < 7 cts/18 ms (green), 7 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel < 10 cts/18 ms (yellow), 10 cts/18 ms
≤ Idel < 13 cts/18 ms (orange),
and 13 cts/18 ms ≤ Idel (red).
(e) PL peak position and (f) full-width-at-half-maximum as a function
of our selection of Idel, displayed here
as the mean ± standard deviation of Lorentzian fits to the selected
18-ms-integrated spectral frames.To correlate the spectral properties and delayed-emission dynamics
of single QDs, we performed simultaneous time-correlated single-photon
counting and spectroscopy by splitting the QD emission (Supporting Information, Section S2). Synchronizing
the measurements provides us with the delayed-emission intensity Idel of the QD (Figure c) during the integration time of each spectral
frame. Figure d shows
the PL spectra for increasing Idel. Note,
however, that, as the integration time for each spectral frame was
18 ms, these PL spectra always contain contributions from both prompt
and delayed emission.The single-QD PL spectrum contains a single
peak for all delayed-emission
intensities Idel (Figure d), resembling a Lorentzian. This indicates
that delayed emission is due to recombination of delocalized, rather
than trapped, charge carriers. If the delayed emission we study here
was due to emission from (surface) trap states, we would expect the
appearance of a second, red-shifted peak in the PL spectrum, as commonly
observed for trap emission on the ensemble scale.[35,36] Nevertheless, the PL spectrum for high Idel is different from that for low Idel.
It red-shifts up to 30 meV with increasing delayed-emission intensity
(Figure e) and broadens
(Figure f). As all
spectra show a single emission peak, this red-shift corresponds to
a spectral shift of both prompt and delayed emission.The comparison
between the time-resolved PL spectra of the QD ensemble
(Figure a,b) and the
single-QD spectra for selected Idel (Figure d–f) is not
straightforward. Even during moments of the highest Idel (Idel > 13 cts/18 ms,
red in Figure c),
83% of the emission is emitted at delay times <200 ns, and only
17% of the emission is emitted at delay times of 200–1000 ns.
In our correlated experiments of PL spectra and dynamics, it is impossible
to select the slowest delayed emission (>500 ns) exclusively. This
explains why our single-QD analysis reproduces the initial red-shift
and broadening of the delayed emission observed in the ensemble-scale
TRES data (blue and green spectra in Figure a), but it is difficult to observe the blue-shift
on time scales >250 ns (yellow, red, and purple spectra in Figure a). Of the 10 QDs
studied, only one shows this blue-shift for the highest Idel (see QD 5 in the Extended Data, Figures E5 and E15). Regardless, our single-QD experiments
prove that the initial red-shift is not exclusively due to sample
polydispersity but occurs on the scale of individual QDs. Future experiments
yielding simultaneous information on the color and delay time of each
individual photon may be necessary to study the single-QD spectrum
of the slowest delayed emission (>500 ns) in more detail.[40]The spectral red-shift and broadening
(see Figure ) point
to an influence of the quantum-confined
Stark effect (QCSE)[25,41] on delayed emission. The QCSE
is the response of a nanoconfined semiconductor to an external electric
field. For example, with the application of electric fields on the
order of 107 V m–1,[21,23−28] the emission of QDs and nanorods red-shifts and broadens. The QCSE
also underlies spectral diffusion, the spontaneous fluctuations in
the PL spectrum demonstrated in various types of individual QDs at
cryogenic temperatures as well as room temperature.[22,25,29,30,42−44] These are due to spontaneously
fluctuating electric fields experienced by charge carriers in the
QD due to, for example, surface atoms or capping ligands moving around
over the QD surface.To elucidate the possible influence of
electric fields on delayed
emission in our individual QDs, we analyze the PL decay dynamics in
more detail. We scaled the PL decay curves of our QD for increasing Idel (Figure a,b) to the number of 18 ms time periods that were
selected to generate the curve. The amplitude of the decay curve,
i.e., the intensity at delay time t = 0, is then
proportional to the radiative decay rate of the QD (Supporting Information, Section S3). With increasing Idel (from blue to red in Figure a,b), the PL decay becomes slower, and the
amplitude of the decay curve decreases. Figure c shows a linear relation between the early
time PL decay rate and the amplitude of the decay curve. This can
be qualitatively explained in terms of the QCSE, wherein a fluctuating
electric field polarizes the exciton wave function (Figure d). Exciton polarization reduces
the electron–hole overlap and thereby the radiative recombination
rate krad, to which the amplitude of the
decay curve is proportional (Supporting Information, Section S3).
Figure 3
(a) Background-subtracted single-QD PL decay curves from
selected
periods with increasing delayed-emission intensity Idel, corresponding to the six delayed-emission categories
indicated in Figure c. We select only periods in which the QD is ON (total emission is
>75 cts/18 ms). (b) Zoom-in of the PL decay curves of panel (a)
on
a semilogarithmic scale. Solid lines are monoexponential fits. (c)
Amplitude and decay rates obtained from fits of monoexponential decay
to the experimental decay curves depicted in (a,b). Colors indicate
the delayed-emission category (see Figure c). The solid line is a linear fit to the
data points. (d) Schematic depiction of the QCSE: an external electric
field perturbs the electron and hole wave functions, thereby reducing
the electron–hole wave function overlap and decreasing the
radiative decay rate krad.
(a) Background-subtracted single-QD PL decay curves from
selected
periods with increasing delayed-emission intensity Idel, corresponding to the six delayed-emission categories
indicated in Figure c. We select only periods in which the QD is ON (total emission is
>75 cts/18 ms). (b) Zoom-in of the PL decay curves of panel (a)
on
a semilogarithmic scale. Solid lines are monoexponential fits. (c)
Amplitude and decay rates obtained from fits of monoexponential decay
to the experimental decay curves depicted in (a,b). Colors indicate
the delayed-emission category (see Figure c). The solid line is a linear fit to the
data points. (d) Schematic depiction of the QCSE: an external electric
field perturbs the electron and hole wave functions, thereby reducing
the electron–hole wave function overlap and decreasing the
radiative decay rate krad.Although the behavior of our single QD is qualitatively consistent
with the QCSE, the fluctuations of krad by a factor 2.4 (Figure c) are stronger than have ever been reported. Previous experiments
achieved spectral shifts of up to several tens of meV in colloidal
QDs and nanorods,[24,26−28] induced by
electric fields of up to 50 MV m–1 applied using
external electrodes. The spectral fluctuations of our QD (up to ∼35
meV; Figure e) are
thus consistent with spontaneously fluctuating electric fields with
strengths of up to a few tens of MV m–1, which could
originate from a few elementary charges diffusing around on the QD
surface (see Supporting Information, Section S4 for further discussion of this). However, such fields were previously
reported to increase the PL lifetime of individual CdSe/CdS QDs by
no more than 5%,[24] while the PL lifetime
of individual CdSe/ZnS QDs became shorter by ∼10% or longer
by ∼10%, depending on the particular QD.[26] These weak lifetime changes are at odds with the strong
fluctuations of up to a factor of 2.4 that we observe. The slowest
photon emission events in our experiments (e.g., at t = 500–1000 ns in Figure a) are even more difficult to reconcile with the expectedly
limited effect of the QCSE on the fluorescence lifetime.To
better understand the expected effect of the QCSE on the PL
lifetime, we performed simple quantum-mechanical effective-mass calculations
(Figure ). We approximated
our QDs as spherical particles with a core of 2 nm radius and a shell
of 2 nm thickness and calculated the spectral shift and radiative
decay rate with increasing homogeneous electric field. The electric
field polarizes the exciton wave function (Figure a,b), decreases the exciton energy (Figure c), and reduces the
electron–hole overlap integral and thereby the radiative decay
rate (Figure d).[28] We calculate that a homogeneous field of approximately
20 MV m–1 induces a Stark shift of approximately
35 meV, which is close to the maximum peak shift we and others[24,26−28] observed experimentally (see Figure e). The corresponding PL decay rate, however,
is only slower by 25% compared to the zero-field situation. These
calculations confirm that the QCSE alone cannot explain the strong
fluctuations in lifetime observed experimentally (Figure e). Note that in the experiment,
the QD may never experience exactly zero electric field, but this
does not affect the expected correlation between exciton energy and
radiative lifetime based on the QCSE model.
Figure 4
(a,b) Calculated (a)
electron and (b) hole charge densities in
a CdSe/CdS core/shell QD experiencing a homogeneous electric field
in the vertical direction (see arrow) with a strength of 14 MV m–1. See Supporting Information, Section S4 for details of the model. (c) Calculated Stark shift
ΔE as a function of electric-field strength.
(d) Calculated normalized radiative decay rate, krad, as a function of electric-field strength. (e) Calculated
relation between krad and ΔE for our QD geometry due to the quantum-confined Stark
effect (QCSE, solid line), and experimental single-QD data (colored
symbols). Symbol colors refer to the delayed-emission category (see Figure c); error bars correspond
to ±1 standard deviation in the fitted Stark shifts.
(a,b) Calculated (a)
electron and (b) hole charge densities in
a CdSe/CdS core/shell QD experiencing a homogeneous electric field
in the vertical direction (see arrow) with a strength of 14 MV m–1. See Supporting Information, Section S4 for details of the model. (c) Calculated Stark shift
ΔE as a function of electric-field strength.
(d) Calculated normalized radiative decay rate, krad, as a function of electric-field strength. (e) Calculated
relation between krad and ΔE for our QD geometry due to the quantum-confined Stark
effect (QCSE, solid line), and experimental single-QD data (colored
symbols). Symbol colors refer to the delayed-emission category (see Figure c); error bars correspond
to ±1 standard deviation in the fitted Stark shifts.To reconcile the apparent link between the QCSE and delayed
emission
with the quantitative mismatch between the emission time scales, we
propose a mechanistic link between charge-carrier trapping/detrapping
and the QCSE. The spontaneously fluctuating electric fields, which
induce the QCSE,[22,25,29,30] may—if sufficiently strong—also
promote temporary trapping of charge carriers. Indeed, several delayed-emission
characteristics on the ensemble and single-QD levels clearly point
to charge-carrier trapping/detrapping. For example, the single-QD
PL decay curves at high Idel contain lifetime
components that are an order of magnitude slower than the prompt lifetime
of 40.7 ns (see delay times of 500–1000 ns in Figure a), which cannot be understood
in terms of the QCSE alone. Moreover, the ensemble-scale emission
spectrum at delay times of >400 ns is nearly identical to prompt
emission,
indicating emission from a nonpolarized exciton.Our interpretation
is supported by previous experiments, which
demonstrated that external electric fields can not only induce the
QCSE[24,26−28] but also influence charge-carrier
trapping.[23] In fact, a transition has been
shown for individual CdSe/ZnS nanorods where weak applied electric
fields (<20 MV m–1) result in the QCSE while
stronger fields (>20 MV m–1) cause charge-carrier
trapping.[27] We propose that spontaneous electric-field fluctuations due to a moving surface charge could
have similar effects. Weak fluctuating fields result in red-shifted
and broadened PL and a reduced radiative recombination rate due to
the QCSE. Stronger fluctuating fields result in temporary charge-carrier
trapping,[23] giving rise to the red-shifted
and unusually slow emission on 100–400 ns time scales. The
slowest delayed emission (>400 ns), which is not red-shifted, can
be explained as follows: the strongest fluctuating fields induce charge-carrier
trapping but may also prevent detrapping (as observed in ref (23) for externally applied
electric fields). Hence, charge carriers cannot detrap until after
the field disappears spontaneously. This could lead to the slowest
delayed-emission events that have the same spectrum as prompt emission.
Indeed, correlation analysis on delayed photons (Figure S6) demonstrates fluctuations in delayed-emission intensity,
hence, electric-field fluctuations, on microsecond time scales. These
electric-field fluctuations would be responsible for keeping charges
trapped for prolonged times of 400 ns and longer.The delayed-emission
characteristics of individual CdSe/CdS QDs
and QD ensembles thus provide evidence for a mechanistic link between
delayed emission and spectral fluctuations due to the QCSE. Although
we studied CdSe/CdS QDs here, exciton wave functions are polarizable
by surface charges in other types of QDs as well. This mechanism could
thus contribute to the delayed emission observed in many types of
QDs, including CuInS2 and perovskites.[11,14] Our findings suggest strategies to control or even eliminate the
occurrence of delayed emission from colloidal QDs.[10,13,14] A high-bandgap shell around the emissive
QD core would increase the separation from diffusing surface charges
and reduce their effect on the exciton. However, charge-carrier delocalization—as
in our CdSe/CdS QDs with a quasi-type-I band alignment—counteracts
this beneficial effect, because it increases the exciton polarizability
and hence the response to external fields. Recently, CdSe/CdZn1–Se core/shell QDs have been reported, with a type-I band alignment
that confines both charge carriers to the core and prevents increased
exciton polarizability.[45] Indeed, these
QDs showed reduced spectral diffusion due to the QCSE. Future research
will have to establish whether such new core/shell QD designs can
suppress delayed emission. This might, for example, be important to
increase the saturation threshold of QDs,[17] making them better suited for high-power and laser applications.
Authors: Tianle Guo; Riya Bose; Xiaohe Zhou; Yuri N Gartstein; Haoze Yang; Sunah Kwon; Moon J Kim; Marat Lutfullin; Lutfan Sinatra; Issam Gereige; Ahmed Al-Saggaf; Osman M Bakr; Omar F Mohammed; Anton V Malko Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 6.475
Authors: Huidong Zang; Mihail Cristea; Xuan Shen; Mingzhao Liu; Fernando Camino; Mircea Cotlet Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 7.790