16
MICHAEL A. STROSCIO ET AL.
an internal polarization oriented along the c-axis of the crystal, known as the spontaneous
polarization. This spontaneous polarization, may be represented in terms of an
equivalent distribution of surface and volume charges. For a spherical quantum dot, a
constant spontaneous polarization leads to an equivalent charge distribution that is a
surface charge given by where ranges from 0 to and is the angle measured
from the c-axis. Such a distribution of charge will lead to a dipole like distribution and
will, of course, be accompanied by bandbending characterized by a linear relationship
between the electric field (associated with the polarization) and the derivative of the
bandedge. When an electrolyte surrounds such a quantum dot, the mobile ions in the
electrolyte will to some degree screen the field associated with the spontaneous
polarization. Hence, the presence of the electrolyte will lead to a relaxation of the
nominal bandbending and a consequent change in the energy levels of the quantum dot.
This will in turn lead to a change in the absorption spectrum and the photoluminescent
spectrum of the quantum dot. Electroreflectance at semiconductor-electrolyte interface
was studied in the pioneering work of Shaklee et al. in 1965.
142
The blinking of single ZnS-coated CdSe semiconductor quantum dots has been
studied by Kuno et al.
143
using confocal microscopy. Using this confocal microscope the
distribution of “on” and “off” times has been determined over a dynamic range
of probabilities and for a nonexponential “off-times” over a range of The measured
distributions were found to obey a power-law distribution of the form
This is in contrast to the fluorescent intermittency distribution observed in
self-assembled InP quantum dots; indeed, Sugisaki et al.
144
find a distribution that
scales exponentially as where E is an activation energy associated with trap
states influencing the intermittency of blinking, is the Boltzmann constant, and T is the
temperature. Based on this exponential distribution, the observation that blinking self-
assembled dots are found in the vicinity of scratches, and the observation that the
blinking frequency is enhanced dramatically in the presence of near-infrared radiation,
Sugisaki et al. have interpreted blinking in self-assembled quantum dots in terms of the
electric field associated with carriers trapped at a deep localized center in the
matrix. Such self-assembled quantum dots are formed, i.e. grown, on a substrate and this
structur
e
plays a major role in the interpretation of Sugisaki et al. In contrast, for the case
of colloidal quantum dots, Kuno et al. have interpreted that as being due to a
distribution of energies of the trap states that interfere with the nominal
photoluminescence of a semiconductor. As noted by Kuno et al., such a power-law
scaling may also be explained in terms of a distribution of tunneling distances between
quantum-dot core and interface states. Moreover, Kuno et al. argue that previous
association of blinking in colloidal quantum dots with Auger processes is not consistent
with their data. The inverse power-law distribution observed by Kuno et al. is
consistent with a distribution of trap/interface states. Such distributions have been
discussed in term of Levy distributions
145
and were considered in the pioneering work of
Scher and Montroll.
146