Source: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/nh/c8nh00341f
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:23:40+00:00

Document:
In this study, we report the interparticle distance dependent multiple exciton dissociation behaviour in quantum dot (QD) solid films for the first time, and we systematically investigate the complex multiple exciton charge transfer behaviour in PbS QD solid films using ultrafast transient absorption spectroscopy. We found that the charge transfer rate constant ket of the single exciton, biexciton and triexciton within the QD solid film is exponentially enhanced as the interparticle distance between the QDs decreases, where charge transfer occurs via the tunneling effect between neighboring QDs. More importantly, when the QD center-to-center distance is smaller than 4.3 nm (or QD–QD spacing is smaller than 0.8 nm), multiple excitons can be rapidly extracted before the occurrence of Auger recombination. This result reveals the reason why above 100% incident photon to current conversion efficiency (IPCE) could only be observed in short surface-ligand treated QD based devices to date. Our finding points out a vital condition for using the multiple excitons in QD solid films and will be beneficial for the use of multiple exciton generation (MEG) in QDs to improve the performance of quantum dot solar cells and could have important implications in the development of this technology.
Quantum dot solar cells (QDSCs) are considered to be one of the most promising candidates for the new-generation photovoltaics due to multiple exciton generation (MEG) in QDs.1–10 In the MEG process, a single high energy photon can generate more than two excitons (electron–hole pairs) across the band gap, which is potentially vital for photocurrent improvements and thus the energy conversion efficiency of the solar devices. The MEG process is known as the inverse Auger recombination (AR) process,1 in which the electron (e)–hole (h) recombination energy is transferred to a third charge (e or h) that is re-excited to a higher-energy state.11 Quantum confinement of the exciton in a QD enhances the exciton–exciton interactions, which leads to MEG and AR processes.12 Thus, a detailed and deep understanding of the dynamics of multiple excitons, including their generation and dissociation, is very important for applying MEG to enhance the photovoltaic performance of QDSCs.
The mechanism of MEG and AR processes in colloidal QDs have been studied using ultrafast transient absorption (TA) spectroscopy.2,11–13 The probability of MEG and AR can be greatly enhanced due to carrier confinement and increased e–h Coulomb interaction.4,14 It is known that MEG has been observed not only in solution but also in closely packed QD solid films such as PbS and PbSe QD films as the excitation photon energy exceeds 2.7 times Eg,2,4,15–23 and improvement of the incident-photon-to-current efficiency (IPCE) of over 100% has also been experimentally demonstrated.24,25 Surface passivation and modification of QDs is significantly important to enhance the photovoltaic performance of QDSCs.5,26–42 Designed surface treatment of QDs can improve the mobility of carriers and reduce the non-radiative carrier recombination.39,43–52 In particular, in QD solid films, the interparticle distance between the QDs can be controlled by the length of surface ligand of the QDs.53 It was reported that QD solid films treated with short ligands have strong electronic interaction between the QDs, which can improve carrier mobility.45,54 However, to date, the deeper reason behind this result has not been revealed and the charge transfer mechanism of multiple excitons between adjacent QDs is not fully understood. Thus, the study of the dynamics of multiple excitons in QD solid films is essential to realize the extraction of excitons and high performance of QDSCs based on MEG.
In this study, we report interparticle distance dependent multiple exciton dissociation in PbS QD solid films. Herein, PbS QD solid films were fabricated by a layer-by-layer method using different mercaptoalkanoic acids (MAA) such as 3-mercaptopropionic acid (3-MPA), 6-mercaptohexanic acid (6-MHA), 12-mercaptohexanic acid (12-MDA) and 16-mercaptohexadecanoic acid (16-MHDA) to replace the original surface ligands (i.e. oleic acid (OA)) of the colloidal PbS QDs. Based on this design, the interparticle distance between PbS QDs was well controlled by the length of the MAA.53 Using the same binding structure of these MAA ligands to the QDs, we observed the dependency of the exciton dissociation dynamics in PbS QD solid films to the QD center-to-center distance. We found that biexciton and triexciton dissociation between adjacent QDs can occur rapidly via charge transfer tunneling effects just like for single excitons, and the obtained charge tunneling constants of single exciton (β1), biexciton (β2) and triexcitons (β3) are 0.67 ± 0.02 nm−1, 0.68 ± 0.05 nm−1 and 0.71 ± 0.01 nm−1, respectively. More importantly, we discovered that when the QD center-to-center distance between the PbS QDs is smaller than 4.3 nm (or an interparticle spacing smaller than 0.8 nm), multiple excitons can be rapidly extracted before the occurrence of Auger recombination. This result reveals the reason why over 100% IPCE has only been observed in short surface ligand treated QD based devices to date.24,25 Our finding points out a necessary condition for using multiple excitons in QD solid films and will be beneficial for using the MEG in QDs to improve the performance of QDSCs.
We initially investigated PbS QDs surface chemistry using Fourier transform infrared absorption (FTIR) spectroscopy. Fig. S1 (ESI†) shows the FTIR spectra of PbS QD solid films before and after MAA ligand exchanges. FTIR results confirm that new MAA ligand can be capped on the QDs surface after ligand exchange. In order to evaluate the interparticle distance between adjacent PbS QDs, which are capped by different MAA ligands, monolayer PbS QDs are deposited on an ultrathin carbon film and characterized by high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM). Fig. S2 (ESI†) shows the HRTEM images of PbS QD ensembles with various MAA ligands. It can be evidently seen that the size of PbS QD is about 3.5 nm and the borderlines of the MAA treated QDs are more distinct than that of OA-capped PbS QD film, which are in good agreement with the removal of OA ligands from the QDs surface. The averaged QD center-to-center distance was calculated as 4.0 ± 0.3 nm, 4.3 ± 0.4 nm, 4.8 ± 0.3 nm and 5.6 ± 0.4 nm for 3-MPA, 6-MHA, 12-MDA and 16-MHDA ligand treated QDs, respectively. And the averaged QD–QD spacing was calculated as 0.5 ± 0.2 nm, 0.8 ± 0.4 nm, 1.3 ± 0.4 nm and 2.1 ± 0.4 nm for 3-MPA, 6-MHA, 12-MDA and 16-MHDA ligand treated QDs, respectively. Interestingly, the averaged QD center-to-center distance and averaged QD–QD spacing in these MAA treated films was found to linearly increase from 4.0 nm to 5.8 nm and from 0.5 nm to 2.3 nm as the number of carbon atoms of the corresponding ligands increases from 3 to 18 as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. S3 (ESI†), respectively.
Fig. 1 The linear relationship between the QD center-to-center distance and the number of carbon atoms in the capping ligands.
where β is the charge tunneling constant and d is the donor–acceptor distance, which is the averaged QD center-to-center distance here.57 And as shown in Fig. S5 (ESI†), the relationship between the averaged QD–QD spacing and k1et can also be well fitted by eqn (1). This result strongly indicates that the behaviour of the charge transfer of 1 e–h pair in the MAA-capped PbS QD solid films is dominated by the tunneling mechanism, and shorter ligands lead to a faster charge transfer rate. The value of the charge tunneling constant for 1 e–h pair (i.e. single exciton), namely β1, can be extracted from eqn (1) as 0.67 ± 0.02 nm−1.
Fig. 2 (a) Spectro-temporal TA map together with the ground-state absorption spectrum of 6-MHA treated PbS QD solid film. The negative signal in the changes of absorption (i.e., the positive value of ΔT) indicates the photobleaching of the exciton state. (b) Correlation between the averaged QD center-to-center distance (d) and the charge transfer rate constant (k1et) of 1 e–h pair from which the exciton lifetimes were calculated in Fig. S4b (ESI†). Single exponential decay fit (eqn (1)) (dotted line) indicates that the charge transfer occurs via tunneling of charge.
Fig. 3 Excitation-fluences dependent TA time decay curves of (a) 16-MHDA and (b) 3-MPA treated films. TA signals of (c) 16-MHDA and (d) 3-MPA treated films vs. the excitation fluence (J) at a delay time of 1 ns. The solid curves are the fitting results.
As shown in Fig. 3c, the fitted results by eqn (2) can reproduce the experimental results very well, which verifies that the multiple exciton relaxation in 16-MHDA treated film is dominated by AR. The value of σ is obtained to be 9.9(±0.5) × 10−15 cm2. The dependence of the TA signal intensity at 1 ns versus the photon fluence of the pump light for the 16-MHDA treated films, i.e., the decay behaviour of the multiple exciton is very similar to that of the isolated QD solution (Fig. S6e, ESI†), which confirms that the electronic interactions between the adjacent QDs in 16-MHDA treated film are negligible.
where K is the probability of the charge transfer occurring. In eqn (3), the first and second terms belong to the AR and the dissociation of multiple exciton caused by charge transfer, respectively. When the charge transfer in a single QD including n excitons generates n QDs including a single exciton, the TA signal intensity resulting from the charge transfer should be KnPn(N0) at 1 ns.60 Thus the TA signal intensity at 1 ns shows no saturation behavior with excitation fluence increasing. As shown in Fig. 3c and d and Fig. S6 (ESI†), the solid curve is the fitting result using eqn (3), which reproduces the experimental result very well. The values of the carrier transfer possibility K and the absorption cross section σ obtained from the fitting results are summarized in Table 1. As the averaged QD center-to-center distance decreases, the carrier transfer possibility K increases, because the increasing overlap of the wave functions of each QD results in rapid carrier transfer into adjacent QDs.
where An is the time-independent coefficients determined by the number of e–h pairs per QD and τn is the lifetime of the n-pair states.62 We subtracted the TA decay curves measured at lower excitation fluence from those measured at higher excitation fluence to obtain a single exponential curve. The lifetimes of τ2 and τ3 can be extracted by fitting the single exponential function to the TA decays, which are obtained by subtracting the TA decay curve at 〈N0〉 < 1 from that at 1 < 〈N0〉 < 2 and subtracting the TA decay curve at 1 < 〈N0〉 < 2 from that at 2 < 〈N0〉 < 3, respectively. Fig. 4 shows the TA decays derived from the subtractive procedure and the fitting results using a single exponential function (Fig. S7, ESI†). The decay rate constants k2 of the biexciton (2 e–h pairs) and k3 of the triexciton (3 e–h pairs), which are the inverse of the lifetimes τ2 and τ3, are shown in Fig. 5a as a function of the QD center-to-center distance for each film. As the QD center-to-center distance decreases, the decay rate constants k2 and k3 of the multiple exciton increases. From prior results of the charge transfer possibility K, we can consider that the increase of the multiple exciton decay rates results from the dissociation of the multiple exciton due to charge transfer.
Fig. 4 Relaxation dynamics of 2 and 3 e–h pair states of (a) 3-MPA, (b) 6-MHA, (c) 12-MDA and (d) 16-MHDA treated films by extracting the TA decay curve at 〈N0〉 < 1 from that at 1 < 〈N0〉 < 2 and subtracting the TA decay curve at 1 < 〈N0〉 < 2 from that at 2 < 〈N0〉 < 3, respectively. The solid curves are fitting curves obtained by fitting the experimental data to a single exponential function.
Fig. 5 Correlation between QD center-to-center distance and (a) the decay rate constant (k = τ−1), and charge transfer rate constants k2et and k3et of 2 e–h pairs (b) and 3 e–h pairs (c) for MAA ligands treated films. A single exponential decay fitting (dotted line) indicates that the carrier transfer occurs via tunneling of charge through a potential barrier.
From Fig. 5b, c and Fig. S8a and b (ESI†), we find that the charge transfer rates of the 2 and 3 e–h pairs are well described by a single exponential decay function of the QD center-to-center distance and the QD–QD spacing, similar to that of the 1 e–h pair. The values of the charge transfer rate constants k2et and k3et and Auger recombination rate constants k2AR and k3AR are summarized in Table 2. In particular, when the QD center-to-center distance (or interparticle spacing) is smaller than 4.3 nm (or 0.8 nm) in the case of 3-MPA and 6-MHA treated PbS QD solid films, the charge transfer rate constants k2et and k3et are larger than the Auger recombination rate constants k2AR and k3AR of those samples. This result indicates that in those samples, multiple excitons can be rapidly extracted before the onset of Auger recombination. Moreover, we determined the charge tunneling constants β2 and β3 by fitting Fig. 5b and c to eqn (1). The extracted values of the charge tunneling constantsβ2 and β3 are 0.68 ± 0.05 nm−1 and 0.71 ± 0.01 nm−1, respectively, which are close to that of the single charge tunneling constants β1. Therefore, we find that the dissociation of multiple exciton in closely packed films also occurs via the tunneling effect just like the behaviour of a single exciton in the QD films.
In summary, the interparticle distance between the PbS QDs were well controlled by using different length MAA surface ligands, and the QD center-to-center distance in these MAA treated films was found to linearly increase as the number of carbon atoms in corresponding ligands increased. Evidence of interparticle distance dependent photogenerated multiple exciton dissociation in closely packed QD solid films has been shown for the first time. Our results show that the dissociation process of single exciton, biexciton and triexciton occur via tunneling of charges between neighboring QDs, and the obtained charge tunneling constants for the single exciton (β1), the biexciton (β2) and the triexciton (β3) are 0.67 ± 0.02 nm−1, 0.68 ± 0.05 nm−1 and 0.71 ± 0.01 nm−1, respectively. More importantly, for the first time, we found that the QD interparticle distance (or spacing) limit of multiple exciton extraction is 4.3 (or 0.8) nm, which clarifies one vital condition for using multiple excitons in packed QD solid films before the occurrence of Auger recombination. This result reveals the reason why above 100% IPCE could only be observed in short surface-ligand treated QD based devices to date. Our finding suggests that there is a large possibility to apply MEG in QDSCs. We consider that our results contribute to a further fundamental understanding of the improvement in the photovoltaic efficiency of QDSCs.
Naoki Nakazawa, Yaohong Zhang and Qing Shen conceived and designed the experiments; Naoki Nakazawa, Feng Liu, Chao Ding, Kanae Hori and Taro Toyoda performed the experiments; Yaohong Zhang, Yingfang Yao, Yong Zhou, Zhigang Zou and Qing Shen analyzed the data; Shuzi Hayase, Ruixiang Wang and Qing Shen contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Naoki Nakazawa and Yaohong Zhang wrote the paper; Qing Shen corrected the paper.
This research was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) PRESTO and CREST programs, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future Urban Design, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture (Grant UDC2018031121), and the MEXT KAKENHI Grant (Grants 26286013, 17H02736).
A. J. Nozik, Inorg. Chem., 2005, 44, 6893–6899 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
A. J. Nozik, M. C. Beard, J. M. Luther, M. Law, R. J. Ellingson and J. C. Johnson, Chem. Rev., 2010, 110, 6873–6890 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
M. C. Beard, J. M. Luther, O. E. Semonin and A. J. Nozik, Acc. Chem. Res., 2013, 46, 1252–1260 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
R. J. Ellingson, M. C. Beard, J. C. Johnson, P. Yu, O. I. Micic, A. J. Nozik, A. Shabaev and A. L. Efros, Nano Lett., 2005, 5, 865–871 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Y. Zhang, C. Ding, G. Wu, N. Nakazawa, J. Chang, Y. Ogomi, T. Toyoda, S. Hayase, K. Katayama and Q. Shen, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2016, 120, 28509–28518 CrossRef CAS.
Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, X. Yu, J. Wei, L. Hu and S. Dai, Sol. Energy, 2012, 86, 964–971 CrossRef CAS.
L. Hu, Z. L. Zhang, R. J. Patterson, Y. C. Hu, W. J. Chen, C. Chen, D. B. Li, C. Hu, C. Ge, Z. H. Chen, L. Yuan, C. Yan, N. Song, Z. L. Teh, G. J. Conibeer, J. Tang and S. J. Huang, Nano Energy, 2018, 46, 212–219 CrossRef CAS.
A. A. Chistyakov, M. A. Zvaigzne, V. R. Nikitenko, A. R. Tameev, I. L. Martynov and O. V. Prezhdo, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2017, 8, 4129–4139 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
S. Jiao, J. Du, Z. Du, D. Long, W. Jiang, Z. Pan, Y. Li and X. Zhong, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2017, 8, 559–564 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
C. Ding, Y. Zhang, F. Liu, Y. Kitabatake, S. Hayase, T. Toyoda, R. Wang, K. Yoshino, T. Minemoto and Q. Shen, Nanoscale Horiz., 2018, 3, 417–429 RSC.
H. Htoon, J. A. Hollingsworth, R. Dickerson and V. I. Klimov, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2003, 91, 227401 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Y. Kanemitsu, Acc. Chem. Res., 2013, 46, 1358–1366 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
A. Shabaev, A. L. Efros and A. J. Nozik, Nano Lett., 2006, 6, 2856–2863 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. M. Luther, M. C. Beard, Q. Song, M. Law, R. J. Ellingson and A. J. Nozik, Nano Lett., 2007, 7, 1779–1784 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
R. D. Schaller and V. I. Klimov, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2004, 92, 186601 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
M. C. Beard, A. G. Midgett, M. Law, O. E. Semonin, R. J. Ellingson and A. J. Nozik, Nano Lett., 2009, 9, 836–845 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
L. A. Padilha, J. T. Stewart, R. L. Sandberg, W. K. Bae, W.-K. Koh, J. M. Pietryga and V. I. Klimov, Acc. Chem. Res., 2013, 46, 1261–1269 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Q. Shen, K. Katayama, T. Sawada, S. Hachiya and T. Toyoda, Chem. Phys. Lett., 2012, 542, 89–93 CrossRef CAS.
Q. Shen, K. Katayama and T. Toyoda, J. Energy Chem., 2015, 24, 712–716 CrossRef.
S. Akhavan, A. F. Cihan, A. Yeltik, B. Bozok, V. Lesnyak, N. Gaponik, A. Eychmuller and H. V. Demir, Nano Energy, 2016, 26, 324–331 CrossRef CAS.
V. Sukhovatkin, S. Hinds, L. Brzozowski and E. H. Sargent, Science, 2009, 324, 1542–1544 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. B. Sambur, T. Novet and B. A. Parkinson, Science, 2010, 330, 63–66 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
O. E. Semonin, J. M. Luther, S. Choi, H.-Y. Chen, J. Gao, A. J. Nozik and M. C. Beard, Science, 2011, 334, 1530–1533 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Y. Yan, R. W. Crisp, J. Gu, B. D. Chernomordik, G. F. Pach, A. R. Marshall, J. A. Turner and M. C. Beard, Nat. Energy, 2017, 2, 17052 CrossRef CAS.
C.-H. M. Chuang, P. R. Brown, V. Bulović and M. G. Bawendi, Nat. Mater., 2014, 13, 796–801 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. Tang, K. W. Kemp, S. Hoogland, K. S. Jeong, H. Liu, L. Levina, M. Furukawa, X. Wang, R. Debnath, D. Cha, K. W. Chou, A. Fischer, A. Amassian, J. B. Asbury and E. H. Sargent, Nat. Mater., 2011, 10, 765–771 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
W. Shi, S. W. H. Eijt, C. S. Suchand Sandeep, L. D. A. Siebbeles, A. J. Houtepen, S. Kinge, E. Brück, B. Barbiellini and A. Bansil, Appl. Phys. Lett., 2016, 108, 081602 CrossRef.
J. Y. Woo, S. Lee, S. Lee, W. D. Kim, K. Lee, K. Kim, H. J. An, D. C. Lee and S. Jeong, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2016, 138, 876–883 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
D. A. Hines and P. V. Kamat, J. Phys. Chem. C, 2013, 117, 14418–14426 CrossRef CAS.
R. W. Crisp, D. M. Kroupa, A. R. Marshall, E. M. Miller, J. Zhang, M. C. Beard and J. M. Luther, Sci. Rep., 2015, 5, 9945 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
P. R. Brown, D. Kim, R. R. Lunt, N. Zhao, M. G. Bawendi, J. C. Grossman and V. Bulović, ACS Nano, 2014, 8, 5863–5872 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. Jean, T. S. Mahony, D. Bozyigit, M. Sponseller, J. Holovsky, M. G. Bawendi and V. Bulovic, ACS Energy Lett., 2017, 2, 2616–2624 CrossRef CAS.
B. Sun, O. Voznyy, H. Tan, P. Stadler, M. Liu, G. Walters, A. H. Proppe, M. Liu, J. Fan, T. Zhuang, J. Li, M. Wei, J. Xu, Y. Kim, S. Hoogland and E. H. Sargent, Adv. Mater., 2017, 29, 1700749 CrossRef PubMed.
M. Ono, T. Nishihara, T. Ihara, M. Kikuchi, A. Tanaka, M. Suzuki and Y. Kanemitsu, Chem. Sci., 2014, 5, 2696–2701 RSC.
R. K. Capek, D. Yanover and E. Lifshitz, Nanoscale, 2015, 7, 5299–5310 RSC.
C. R. Kagan, E. Lifshitz, E. H. Sargent and D. V. Talapin, Science, 2016, 353, 5523 CrossRef PubMed.
D. Asil, B. J. Walker, B. Ehrler, Y. Vaynzof, A. Sepe, S. Bayliss, A. Sadhanala, P. C. Y. Chow, P. E. Hopkinson, U. Steiner, N. C. Greenham and R. H. Friend, Adv. Funct. Mater., 2014, 25, 928–935 CrossRef.
Y. Gao, M. Aerts, C. S. S. Sandeep, E. Talgorn, T. J. Savenije, S. Kinge, L. D. A. Siebbeles and A. J. Houtepen, ACS Nano, 2012, 6, 9606–9614 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
P. Galar, P. Piatkowski, T. T. Ngo, M. Gutierrez, I. Mora-Sero and A. Douhal, Nano Energy, 2018, 49, 471–480 CrossRef CAS.
H. I. Wang, M. Bonn and E. Cánovas, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2017, 8, 2654–2658 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
F. Liu, Y. Zhang, C. Ding, T. Toyoda, Y. Ogomi, T. S. Ripolles, S. Hayase, T. Minemoto, K. Yoshino, S. Dai and Q. Shen, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2018, 9, 294–297 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. M. Luther, M. Law, Q. Song, C. L. Perkins, M. C. Beard and A. J. Nozik, ACS Nano, 2008, 2, 271–280 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
S. J. Oh, Z. Wang, N. E. Berry, J.-H. Choi, T. Zhao, E. A. Gaulding, T. Paik, Y. Lai, C. B. Murray and C. R. Kagan, Nano Lett., 2014, 14, 6210–6216 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Y. Liu, M. Gibbs, J. Puthussery, S. Gaik, R. Ihly, H. W. Hillhouse and M. Law, Nano Lett., 2010, 10, 1960–1969 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Y. Zhang, G. Wu, C. Ding, F. Liu, Y. Yao, Y. Zhou, C. Wu, N. Nakazawa, Q. Huang, T. Toyoda, R. Wang, S. Hayase, Z. Zou and Q. Shen, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2018, 9, 3598–3603 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
H. Zhang, B. Hu, L. Sun, R. Hovden, F. W. Wise, D. A. Muller and R. D. Robinson, Nano Lett., 2011, 11, 5356–5361 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
S. J. Oh, D. B. Straus, T. Zhao, J. H. Choi, S. W. Lee, E. A. Gaulding, C. B. Murray and C. R. Kagan, Chem. Commun., 2017, 53, 728–731 RSC.
Q. Lin, H. J. Yun, W. Liu, H.-J. Song, N. S. Makarov, O. Isaienko, T. Nakotte, G. Chen, H. Luo, V. I. Klimov and J. M. Pietryga, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2017, 139, 6644–6653 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
G. W. Guglietta, B. T. Diroll, E. A. Gaulding, J. L. Fordham, S. Li, C. B. Murray and J. B. Baxter, ACS Nano, 2015, 9, 1820–1828 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
M. T. Frederick, V. A. Amin and E. A. Weiss, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2013, 4, 634–640 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
E. A. Weiss, ACS Energy Lett., 2017, 2, 1005–1013 CrossRef.
M. S. Kodaimati, C. Wang, C. Chapman, G. C. Schatz and E. A. Weiss, ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 5041–5050 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
C. S. S. Sandeep, S. Ten Cate, J. M. Schins, T. J. Savenije, Y. Liu, M. Law, S. Kinge, A. J. Houtepen and L. D. A. Siebbeles, Nat. Commun., 2013, 4, 2360 CrossRef PubMed.
J. Chang, Y. Ogomi, C. Ding, Y. H. Zhang, T. Toyoda, S. Hayase, K. Katayama and Q. Shen, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2017, 19, 6358–6367 RSC.
R. A. Marcus and N. Sutin, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Rev. Biomembr., 1985, 811, 265–322 CrossRef CAS.
J. J. Choi, J. Luria, B.-R. Hyun, A. C. Bartnik, L. Sun, Y.-F. Lim, J. A. Marohn, F. W. Wise and T. Hanrath, Nano Lett., 2010, 10, 1805–1811 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
V. I. Klimov, J. Phys. Chem. B, 2000, 104, 6112–6123 CrossRef CAS.
V. I. Klimov, D. W. McBranch, C. A. Leatherdale and M. G. Bawendi, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys., 1999, 60, 13740–13749 CrossRef CAS.
T. Nishihara, H. Tahara, M. Okano, M. Ono and Y. Kanemitsu, J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2015, 6, 1327–1332 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
H. Tahara, M. Sakamoto, T. Teranishi and Y. Kanemitsu, Nat. Commun., 2018, 9, 3179 CrossRef PubMed.
V. I. Klimov, A. A. Mikhailovsky, D. W. McBranch, C. A. Leatherdale and M. G. Bawendi, Science, 2000, 287, 1011–1013 CrossRef CAS PubMed.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

V. 

V. 

V.