InGaAs/GaAs three-dimensionally-ordered array of quantum dots

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 83, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 987-989

  Mazur, Yu I ^a   Ma, W Q ^a   Wang, X ^a   Wang, Z M ^a   Salamo, G J ^a   Xiao, M ^a   Mishima, T D ^b   Johnson, M B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

^b University of Oklahoma   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PHOTOLUMINESCENCE; SEMICONDUCTING GALLIUM ARSENIDE; SEMICONDUCTING INDIUM GALLIUM ARSENIDE; TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY;

OPTICAL EXCITATION;

SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

EID: 0041375677     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1596712     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. D. Bimberg, M. Grundman, and N. N. Ledentsov, Quantum Dot Heterostructures (Wiley, Chichester, 1999).
2. B. D. Min, Y. Kim, E. K. Kim, S. K. Min, and M. J. Park, Phys. Rev. B 57, 11879 (1998).
3. R. Leon, S. Marcinkevicius, X. Z. Liao, J. Zou, D. J. H. Cockayne, and S. Fafard, Phys. Rev. B 60, R8517 (1999).
4. G. S. Solomon, J. A. Trezza, A. F. Marshall, and J. S. Harris, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 952 (1996).
5. B. Grandidier, Y. M. Niquet, B. Legrand, J. P. Nys, C. Priester, D. Stiévenard, J. M. Gérard, and V. Thierry-Mieg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1068 (2000).
6. W. Ma, R. Nötzel, A. Trampert, M. Ramsteiner, H. Zhu, H.-P. Schönherr, and K. H. Ploog, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 1297 (2001).
7. W. Ma, R. Nötzel, H.-P. Schönherr, and K. H. Ploog, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 4219 (2001).
8. I. Vurgaftman, J. R. Meyer, and L. R. Ram-Mohan, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 5815 (2001).
9. S. Sanguinetti, M. Henini, M. Grassi Alessi, M. Capizzi, P. Frigeri, and S. Franchi, Phys. Rev. B 60, 8276 (1999).
10. Y. T. Dai, J. C. Fan, Y. F. Chen, R. M. Lin, S. C. Lee, and H. H. Lin, J. Appl. Phys. 82, 4489 (1997).
11. C. Lobo, R. Leon, S. Marcinkevicius, W. Yang, P. C. Sercel, X. Z. Liao, J. Zou, and D. J. H. Cockayne, Phys. Rev. B 60, 16647 (1999).
12. A. Tackeuchi, T. Kuroda, K. Mase, Y. Nakata, and N. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. B 62, 1568 (2000).
13. P. W. Fry, J. J. Finley, L. R. Wilson, A. Lemaître, D. J. Mowbray, M. S. Skolnick, M. Hopkinson, G. Hill, and J. C. Clark, Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 4344 (2000).
14. S. Raymond, S. Fafard, P. J. Poole, A. Wojs, P. Hawrylak, S. Charbonneau, D. Leonard, R. Leon, P. M. Petroff, and J. L. Merz, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11548 (1996).
15. P. Harrison, Quantum Wells, Wires and Dots (Wiley, New York, 2000).
16. As clearly seen from Fig. 1(a) the plane-view TEM image shows a darker contrast between QDs than that of the regions between chains. Generally such contrast difference could be a consequence of several possibilities, i.e., differences in strain field, chemical composition, as well as thickness. Following our PL data, we consider the main reason for darker contrast between QDs comparing with the regions between chains is due to thickness difference.
17. P. Yu, W. Langbein, K. Leosson, J. M. Hvam, N. N. Ledentsov, D. Bimberg, V. M. Ustinov, A. Yu. Egorov, A. E. Zhukov, A. F. Tsatsul'nikov, and Yu. G. Musikhin, Phys. Rev. B 60, 16680 (1999).