Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Finding and Fixing Traps in II–VI and III–V Colloidal Quantum Dots: The Importance of Z-Type Ligand Passivation

Open access
Kirkwood, Nicholas, Monchen, Julius O. V., Crisp, Ryan W., Grimaldi, Gianluca, Bergstein, Huub A. C., du Fossé, Indy, van der Stam, Ward, Infante, Ivan, Houtepen, Arjan J.·2018·Journal of the American Chemical Society

Abstract

Abstract Energy levels in the band gap arising from surface states can dominate the optical and electronic properties of semiconductor nanocrystal quantum dots (QDs). Recent theoretical work has predicted that such trap states in II–VI and III–V QDs arise only from two-coordinated anions on the QD surface, offering the hypothesis that Lewis acid (Z-type) ligands should be able to completely passivate these anionic trap states. In this work, we provide experimental support for this hypothesis by demonstrating that Z-type ligation is the primary cause of PL QY increase when passivating undercoordinated CdTe QDs with various metal salts. Optimized treatments with InCl3 or CdCl2 afford a near-unity (>90%) photoluminescence quantum yield (PL QY), whereas other metal halogen or carboxylate salts provide a smaller increase in PL QY as a result of weaker binding or steric repulsion. The addition of non-Lewis acidic ligands (amines, alkylammonium chlorides) systematically gives a much smaller but non-negligible increase in the PL QY. We discuss possible reasons for this result, which points toward a more complex and dynamic QD surface. Finally we show that Z-type metal halide ligand treatments also lead to a strong increase in the PL QY of CdSe, CdS, and InP QDs and can increase the efficiency of sintered CdTe solar cells. These results show that surface anions are the dominant source of trap states in II–VI and III–V QDs and that passivation with Lewis acidic Z-type ligands is a general strategy to fix those traps. Our work also provides a method to tune the PL QY of QD samples from nearly zero up to near-unity values, without the need to grow epitaxial shells.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jacs.8b07783

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Kirkwood, N., Monchen, J. O. V., Crisp, R. W., Grimaldi, G., Bergstein, H. A. C., du Fossé, I., van der Stam, W., Infante, I., & Houtepen, A. J.
Venue
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Published
2018-10-30
Volume
140
Issue
46
Pages
15712-15723
ISSN
  • 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5126
OpenAlex
W2898645247
Cited by
299
References
37
FWCI
7.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.