N-type doping of oxides by hydrogen

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 73-75

  Kiliç, Çetin ^a   Zunger, Alex ^a  

^a NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONDUCTION-BAND MINIMUM; DEEP DONOR; DEEP IMPURITIES; FIRST-PRINCIPLES; HYDROGEN FORMS; INTERSTITIAL HYDROGEN; N-TYPE DOPING; PINNING LEVEL; SHALLOW DONORS; TIO; TOTAL-ENERGY CALCULATIONS; ZNO;

CADMIUM COMPOUNDS; CALCULATIONS; ELECTRON AFFINITY; HAFNIUM OXIDES; LEAD OXIDE; NIOBIUM OXIDE; RUTHENIUM COMPOUNDS; SILVER OXIDES; TANTALUM OXIDES; TITANIUM DIOXIDE; ZINC OXIDE;

HYDROGEN;

EID: 67649937526     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1482783     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. S. K. Estreicher, Mater. Sci. Eng., R. 14, 319 (1995). msr MIGIEA 0927-796X
2. S. Samson and C. G. Fonstad, J. Appl. Phys. 44, 4618 (1973). jap JAPIAU 0021-8979
3. C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1012 (2000). prl PRLTAO 0031-9007
4. D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 566 (1980); prl PRLTAO 0031-9007
5. J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 23, 5048 (1981). prb PRBMDO 0163-1829
6. J. Ihm, A. Zunger, and M. L. Cohen, J. Phys. C 12, 4409 (1979). jpc JPSOAW 0022-3719
7. G. Kresse and J. Furthmuller, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6, 15 (1996); cmt CMMSEM 0927-0256
8. 2 were the same as in a previous publication [ Ç. Kiliç and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 095501 (2002)]; prl PRLTAO 0031-9007
9. For CdO and MgO, we used cubic supercells consisting of 64 atoms, formed by eight primitive unitcells of rocksalt structure.
10. 1) atoms were modeled using ultrasoft pseudopotentials [ D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 41, 7892 (1990)]. prb PRBMDO 0163-1829
11. The plane wave basis sets were determined by imposing a kinetic energy cutoff of 396 eV.
12. The Brillouin zone of the supercells was sampled by a 2×2×2 k-point mesh generated according to Monkhorst-Pack scheme [ H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)]. prq PLRBAQ 0556-2805
13. −5) where L is the supercell size [ G. Makov and M. C. Payne, Phys. Rev. B 51, 4014 (1995)]. prb PRBMDO 0163-1829
14. 2 (rutile) are 5.2, 1.2, and 1.2, respectively, compared to measured values of 7.8 eV for MgO [ R. C. Whited, C. J. Flaten, and W. C. Walker, Solid State Commun. 13, 1903 (1973)]; ssc SSCOA4 0038-1098
15. -2.4 eV for CdO [ T. K. Subramanyama, G. M. Raob, and S. Uthanna, Mater. Chem. Phys. 69, 133 (2001)], and mcp MCHPDR 0254-0584
16. 2 [ Z. M. Jarzebski and J. P. Marton, J. Electrochem. Soc. 123, 333C (1976)]. jes JESOAN 0013-4651
17. The calculated (indirect) band gap of CdO is-0.4 compared to measured value of 0.8 eV [ F. P. Koffyberg, Phys. Rev. B 13, 4470 (1976). prq PLRBAQ 0556-2805
18. A. Yokozawa and Y. Miyamoto, Phys. Rev. B 55, 13783 (1997). prb PRBMDO 0163-1829
19. Following earlier theoretical work [ P. A. Sterne and J. C. Inkson, J. Phys. C 17, 1497 (1984); jpc JPSOAW 0022-3719
20. K. A. Johnson and N. W. Aschcroft, Phys. Rev. B 58, 15548 (1998) ]; prb PRBMDO 0163-1829
21. 1/3(r)+C for valence electrons, where ρ(r) denotes the charge density. We determine the constant λ by adjusting the calculated band gap to the experimental value, and C by assuming that the LDA total energy of the ideal solid is unaltered. The formation energies are corrected by adding the shift in CBM to the total energy if the electrons occupying states derived from hydrogen are relaxed to the CBM. An interpolation between VBM and CBM shifts is made for the gap states.
22. S. F. J. Cox, E. A. Davis, P. J. C. King, J. M. Gil, H. V. Alberto, R. C. Vilao, J. Piroto Duarte, N. A. de Campos, and R. L. Lichti, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, 9001 (2001). jcz JCOMEL 0953-8984
23. J. Neugebauer and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4452 (1995). prl PRLTAO 0031-9007
24. M. Caldas, A. Fazzio, and A. Zunger, Appl. Phys. Lett. 45, 671 (1984); apl APPLAB 0003-6951
25. A. Zunger, in Solid State Physics, edited by F. Seitz, D. Turnbull, and H. Ehrenreich (Academic, New York, 1986), Vol. 39, p. 275.
26. M. A. Butler and D. S. Ginley, J. Electrochem. Soc. 125, 228 (1978). jes JESOAN 0013-4651
27. L. H. Tjeng, A. R. Vos, and G. A. Sawatzky, Surf. Sci. 235, 269 (1990). sus SUSCAS 0039-6028
28. W. R. L. Lambrecht, S. Limpijumnong, and B. Segall, MRS Internet J. Nitride Semicond. Res. 4S1, G6 (1999). mrj MIJNF7 1092-5783
29. W. Schmickler and J. W. Schultze, in Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry, edited by J. O'M. Bockris, B. E. Conway, and R. E. White (Plenum, New York, 1986), No. 17, p. 357.
30. CBM-0.14eV, i.e. below the CBM. We think this difference could arise from the formation of a bound state following the relaxation of electrons released by H donor into the CBM. The binding energy reflects the screened, long-range Coulomb interaction that is absent in our relatively small supercell calculations.
31. A. Azens, A. Hjelm, D. Le Bellac, C. G. Granqvist, J. Barczynska, E. Pentjuss, J. Gabrusenoks, and J. M. Wills, Solid State Ionics 86, 943 (1996). ssi SSIOD3 0167-2738
32. C. H. Park and D. J. Chadi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4717 (2000). prl PRLTAO 0031-9007