ARTICLE IN PRESS

Physica E 42 (2010) 1623–1626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physica E
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/physe

The hydrostatic pressure and temperature effects on donor impurities in

cylindrical quantum wire under the magnetic field
E. Kasapoglu a,n, F. Ungan a, H. Sari a, I. Sökmen b
a
Cumhuriyet University, Department of Physics, 58140 Sivas, Turkey
b
Dokuz Eylül University, Department of Physics, 35160 _Izmir, Turkey

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: The combined effects of hydrostatic pressure and temperature on donor impurity binding energy in
Received 9 October 2009 cylindrical GaAs/Ga0.7Al0.3As quantum wire in the presence of the magnetic field have been studied by
Accepted 5 January 2010 using a variational technique within the effective-mass approximation. The results show that an
Available online 13 January 2010
increment in temperature results in a decrement in donor impurity binding energy while an increment
Keywords: in the pressure for the same temperature enhances the binding energy and the pressure effects on
Donor impurities donor binding energy are lower than those due to the magnetic field.
Cylindrical quantum wire & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Hydrostatic pressure
Temperature

1. Introduction the X-minima are the lowest energy states in the GaAs layer and
both the barrier and well materials become indirect.
Semiconductor quantum wires (QWRs) have been studied
intensively worldwide for a wide spectrum of materials. Such
one-dimensional (1D) nanostructures are not only interesting for 2. Theory
fundamental research due to their unique structural and physical
properties relative to their bulk counterparts, but also offer In the effective mass approximation the Hamiltonian for a
fascinating potential for future technological applications. The hydrogenic on-center shallow donor impurity in GaAs/Ga1  xAlxAs
understanding of the electronic and optical properties of impurities quantum wire under the magnetic field is given by
in such systems is important because the optical and transport 
1 ! e ! ! 2 e2
properties of devices made from these materials are strongly H¼ p e þ A ð r Þ þ Vðr; P; TÞ ð1Þ
affected by the presence of shallow impurities. And also, magnetic 2me ðP; TÞ c eðP; TÞr
and electric fields, intense laser field and hydrostatic pressure are ! !! ! !
where p e is the momentum operator, A ð r Þ ¼ 12ð B x r Þ ¼
effective tools for studying the properties of impurities in hetero-
ððB=2Þy; ðB=2Þx; 0Þ the vector potential associated with the
structures and thus a number of studies have been performed to !
discuss the hydrogenic-shallow impurities in QWWs [1–12]. magnetic field ( B ¼ ð0; 0; BÞ), P the hydrostatic pressure in units
In this letter, the combined effects of hydrostatic pressure and of kbar, T is the temperature in units of Kelvin,
temperature on donor impurity binding energy in cylindrical ! ! 2
r ¼ ð9 r  r i 9 þ z2 Þ1=2 the distance between the electron and the
GaAs/Ga0.7Al0.3 quantum wire in the presence of the magnetic donor impurity site, V(r,P,T) the pressure and temperature
field are investigated for the pressure values where there is no dependent confinement potential, e(P,T) the pressure and tem-
G X crossover by using a variational technique within the perature dependent dielectric constant and me(P,T) the pressure
effective-mass approximation. As known, for pressures P r10 and temperature dependent effective mass. By introducing the
kbar a G-like electron is confined in GaAs layer by the G barriers effective Rydberg ðRyd ¼ ðme ðP; TÞe4 =2e2 ðP; TÞ_2 ÞÞ as the unit of
of constant height while for 10 oP r30 kbar the X-minima of the
energy and the effective Bohr radius ðaB ¼ ðeðP; TÞ_2 =me ðP; TÞe2 ÞÞ as
barrier layers drop below the G-minimum of these layers and pass
the unit of length, Hamiltonian in cylindrical coordinates and in
through the energies of the confined electron states. For P 430
the reduced units can be written as
kbar the X-minima of the Ga0.7Al0.3As layers become the
!
minimum of the conduction-band states of the system and @2 1 @ 1 @2 @2 g2 r2
~
H ¼ þ þ  2 þ gLz þ
electrons are no longer confined to the GaAs layer. For PZ40 kbar @r2 r @r r2 @j2 @z 4
2
~ r;P;TÞ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n
þ Vð ffi; ð2Þ
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 90 346 2191010/1937; fax: + 90 346 2191186. ! ! 2
E-mail address: ekasap@cumhuriyet.edu.tr (E. Kasapoglu).
9 r  r i 9 þz2

1386-9477/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physe.2010.01.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1624 E. Kasapoglu et al. / Physica E 42 (2010) 1623–1626

where Lz is the z-component of the angular momentum operator is evaluated by minimizing the expectation value of the
in units of _ and gð ¼ e_B=2me ðP; TÞcRydðP; TÞÞ is the dimensionless Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) with respect to l.
measure of the magnetic field. The ground state donor binding energy is calculated as
The pressure and temperature dependent effective mass for
~ r; j; zÞS:
Eb ðP; TÞ ¼ Eo ðP; TÞ þ gmin/Hð ð12Þ
the electron is given by Refs. [13,14] l
mo
me ðP; TÞ ¼ ð3Þ
1 þ EG G G
p ½ð2=Eg ðP; TÞÞ þ ð1=Eg ðP; TÞ þ Do Þ
where Eo(P,T) is the ground-state energy of electron and g is the
first Landau level.
EG
where mo is the free electron mass, p ¼ 7:51 eV, Do = 0.341 eV and
EG
g ðP; TÞ the pressure and temperature dependent energy gap for
the GaAs quantum well at the G-point in units of eV is given by
Ref. [13]
3. Results and discussion
EG G
g ðP; TÞ ¼ Eg ð0; TÞ þ1:26  10
2
P3:77  105 P 2 ð4aÞ

4 2 Fig. 1 shows the variation of the ground state binding energy of

EG
g ð0; TÞ ¼ 1:519ð5:405  10 T Þ=ðT þ 204Þ eV ð4bÞ
donor impurity located in the wire center in cylindrical quantum
The pressure and temperature dependent static dielectric wire versus the wire radius for different hydrostatic pressure,
constant is given by Refs. [15,16] magnetic field and temperature values. Binding energy increases
( with wire radius until it reaches a maximum value and then
12:74 exp½1:73  103 Pexp½9:4  105 ðT75:6Þ for T o 200 K
eðP; TÞ ¼ begins to decrease for further large wire radii due to the leakage
13:18 exp½1:73  103 Pexp½20:4  105 ðT300Þ for T Z 200 K
of the wave function into the barriers. Also the binding energy
ð5Þ increases with the magnetic field since the magnetic field gives an
for the electron which is given by additional confinement of the electronic wave function. As the
( hydrostatic pressure increases dielectric constant, the potential
0; 0 r r rdðP; TÞ height, the first subband energy, wire radius decrease the
Vðr; P; TÞ ¼ ð6Þ
VðP; TÞ; r 4 dðP; TÞ effective mass increases for electron, leading to more
confinement of the electron and thus the donor binding energy
where d(P,T) is the pressure and temperature dependent radius of increases for all wire radii. This increment in donor binding
the wire and V(P,T) the barrier height of the confinement energy due to the hydrostatic pressure is lower than that due to
potential. The barrier height is given by Refs. [17–19] the magnetic field. As the temperature increases dielectric
VðP; TÞ ¼ Qc DEG constant and first subband energy increase while effective mass
g ðx; P; TÞ: ð7Þ
and potential height of electron decrease and so donor binding
where Qc( =0.6) is the conduction band offset parameter, x the energy decreases for all wire radii. The dependency of the
mole fraction of aluminum in Ga1  xAlxAs layer, DEG
g ðx; P; TÞ is the physical parameters(dielectric constant, the potential height, the
band gap difference between quantum well and the barrier matrix first subband energy, wire radius and the effective mass)
at the G-point as a function of pressure and temperature and it is mentioned above upon the pressure and temperature are given
given by Refs. [14,20] in Fig. 2(a)–(e).
DEGg ðx; P; TÞ ¼ DEGg ðxÞ þ DðxÞP þ GðxÞT ð8Þ
40
2 3
where DEG g ðxÞ ¼ ð1:155x þ 0:37x Þ eV, D(x)=[  (1.3  10 )x]eV/ T = 50 K
kbar and G(x)=[( 1.11  10  4)x]eV/K. The pressure dependence - - - - - - T = 250 K
of the wire radius obtained from the fractional change in volume 1 P=0
associated with the hydrostatic pressure (DV/Vo = 3P(S11 +S12))
30 2 P = 13.5 kbar
[21] is given by

dðPÞ ¼ do ½13PðS11 þ 2S12 Þ1=2 ; ð9Þ

where do is the original radius of the wire and S11 = 1.16  10  3
Eb (meV)

and S12 = 3.7  10  4 kbar  1 are the elastic constants of the GaAs
[22] 20
The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian in the absence of the
B = 15 T 2
impurity are given by
8
gr2 =4
rod 1
< J0 ðr10 rÞe
> ;
Fðr; zÞ ¼ N J0 ðr10 rÞ gr2 =4 ð10Þ 10 2
B=0
: K ðb dÞ K0 ðb10 rÞe
> ; r4d
0 10 1
pffiffiffiffiffi
wherepffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N is the normalization constant, r10 ¼ Eo ,
b10 ¼ VðP; TÞEo , J0 and K0 are zero-order and modified Bessel
functions, respectively.
0
By considering the Coulombic interaction between the electron
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
and impurity ion, the wave function of Eq. (2) can be written as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi do ( )
! ! 2
 9 r  r i 9 þ z2
cðr; zÞ ¼ N1 Fðr; zÞe =l ð11Þ Fig. 1. The variation of the ground state binding energy of donor impurity located
in the wire center in cylindrical quantum wire versus the wire radius for different
where N1 is the normalization constant of the trial wave function hydrostatic pressure, magnetic field and temperature values. Solid (dashed) curve
and l the variational parameter. The ground state impurity energy is corresponding to T= 50 K (T= 250 K).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Kasapoglu et al. / Physica E 42 (2010) 1623–1626 1625

228
14.00

T=4K
13.60 T = 500 K
224
T = 50 K

13.20

V (meV)
T = 250 K
220
T = 250 K
12.80

T = 50 K
216
12.40 T=4K T = 500 K

12.00 212
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
P (kbar) P (kbar)

15.00
44

40 T = 500 K 14.50

36
Eo (meV)

d( )

14.00
T = 250 K
32

T = 50 K 13.50
28
T=4K

24 13.00
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
P (kbar) P (kbar)

0.08
T=4K

T = 50 K
0.07
T = 250 K
m*/ mo

0.07
T = 500 K

0.06

0.06
0 5 10 15
P (kbar)

Fig. 2. The dependency of the pressure and temperature upon the physical parameters (dielectric constant, the potential height, the first subband energy, wire radius and
the effective mass).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1626 E. Kasapoglu et al. / Physica E 42 (2010) 1623–1626
4. Conclusions
As a result, the effects of hydrostatic pressure and temperature
on donor impurity binding energy in cylindrical GaAs/Ga0.7Al0.3As
quantum wire in the presence of the magnetic field by using a
variational technique within the effective-mass approximation
have been investigated. For simplicity, in this letter, we use the
pressure values where there is no G  X crossover. The results
show that an increment in temperature results in a decrement in
donor impurity binding energy while an increment in the
pressure for the same temperature enhances the binding energy
and the effects of the magnetic field on donor binding energy are
higher than that of the pressure effects. The obtained results are
qualitatively consistent with theoretical studies on this subject. It
is hoped that the present work would stimulate further experi-
mental activities in semiconductor heterostructures.
References
[1] G.W. Bryant, Phys. Rev. B 29 (1984) 6632.
[2] N. Porras-Montenegro, J. Lo’pez-Gondar, L.E. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991)
1824.
[3] S. Aktas, F.K. Boz, S.S. Dalgıc, Physica E 28 (2005) 96.
[4] X.T. An, J.J. Liu, J. Appl. Phys. 99 (2006) 123713.
[5] A.L. Vartanian, M.A. Yeranosyan, A.A. Kirakosyan, Phys. B—Condens. Matter
390 (2007) 256.
[6] E. Niculescu, A. Gearba, G. Cone, C. Negutu, Superlatt. Microstruct. 29 (2001)
319.
[7] A. Zounoubi, K.E. Messaoudi, I. Zorkani, A. Jorio, Superlatt. Microstruct. 30
(2001) 189.
[8] X.T. An, J.J. Liu, J. Appl. Phys. 99 (2006) 123713.
[9] S- . Aktas, F.K. Boz, A. Bilekkaya, S.E. Okan, Physica E 41 (2009) 1572.
[10] A.J. Peter, J. Optoelectronics Adv. Mater. 11 (2009) 565.
[11] E. Kasapoglu, H. Sari, I. Sökmen, Physica E 19 (2003) 332;
H. Sarı, E. Kasapoglu, _I. Sökmen, Phys. Lett. A 311 (2003) 60;
E. Kasapoglu, H. Sari, U. Yesilgül, I. Sökmen, Surf. Rev. Lett. 11 (2004) 411;
E. Kasapoglu, U. Yesilgül, H. Sari, I. Sökmen, Physica B 368 (2005) 76.
[12] J.W. González, S.Y. López, A.H. Rodrı́guez, N. Porras-Montenegro, C.A. Duque,
Phys. Status Solidi (b) 244 (2007) 70.
[13] H.J. Ehrenreich, J. Appl. Phys. 32 (1961) 2155.
[14] B. Welber, M. Cardona, C.K. Kim, S. Rodriquez, Phys. Rev. B 12 (1975)
5729.
[15] H.O. Oyoko, N. Parras-Montenegro, S.Y. Lopez, C.A. Duque, Phys. Status Solidi
(c) 4 (2) (2007) 298.
[16] E. Herbert Li, Physica E 5 (2000) 215.
[17] E. Kasapoglu, H. Sari, I. Sökmen, Physica B 373 (2006) 280.
[18] R.F. Kopf, M.H. Herman, M.L. Schnoes, A.P. Perley, G. Livescu, M. Ohring,
J. Appl. Phys. 71 (1992) 5004.
[19] G.A. Samara, Phys. Rev. B 27 (1983) 3494.
[20] D.E. Aspnes, Phys. Rev. B 14 (1976) 5331.
[21] P.Y. Yu, M. Cardona, Fundamentals of Semiconductors, Springer, Berlin, 1998.
[22] A. Gavini, M. Cordona, Phys. Rev. B 1 (1969) 672.