Physics Letters A 373 (2008) 140–143

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters A

www.elsevier.com/locate/pla

The hydrostatic pressure and temperature effects on donor impurities

in GaAs/Ga1−x Alx As double quantum well under the external fields
E. Kasapoglu
Department of Physics, Cumhuriyet University, 58140 Sivas, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The combined effects of hydrostatic pressure and temperature on donor impurity binding energy in
Received 6 August 2008 GaAs/Ga0.7 Al0.3 As double quantum well in the presence of the electric and magnetic fields which are
Received in revised form 23 October 2008 applied along the growth direction have been studied by using a variational technique within the
Accepted 28 October 2008
effective-mass approximation. The results show that an increment in temperature results in a decrement
Available online 7 November 2008
Communicated by R. Wu
in donor impurity binding energy while an increment in the pressure for the same temperature enhances
the binding energy and the pressure effects on donor binding energy are lower than those due to the
PACS: magnetic field.
71.55.Eq © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
71.55.-I

Keywords:
Donor impurities
Double quantum well
Hydrostatic pressure
Temperature
Electric and magnetic fields

1. Introduction It is well known that for pressures P  10 kbar a Γ -like elec-

Impurities in semiconductor heterostructures are known to pro-
mote a number of qualitative changes in electronic and optical
properties which may be properly controlled by adequate choice
of the sample geometry and external fields. Theoretical studies
related to the effects of hydrostatic pressure on shallow-donor
impurity states in single and double GaAs/GaAlAs quantum wells
have been reported [1–5]. These authors have considered the Γ – X
crossover and, as general feature, they have found a linear de-
pendence on binding energy in the direct gap regime under the
applied pressure, while in the indirect gap regime energy grows
with the pressure until reaching a maximum and then it decreases.
Elabsy [1] has calculated the effects of hydrostatic pressure on the
binding energy of donor impurities in quantum wells, finding that
the binding energy increases with increasing hydrostatic pressure
for a certain well thickness and temperature. Oyoko et al. [6] have
calculated the effect of hydrostatic pressure and temperature on
shallow-impurity related optical absorption spectra in GaAs/GaAlAs
single and double quantum wells. A. John Peter et al. [7] have
calculated the binding energies of donors in GaAs/GaAlAs single
quantum well as a function of the pressure and temperature.
E-mail address: ekasap@cumhuriyet.edu.tr.
0375-9601/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2008.10.080
tron is confined in GaAs layer by the Γ barriers of constant height
while for 10 kbar < P  30 kbar the X -minima of the barrier lay-
ers drop below the Γ -minimum of these layers and pass through
the energies of the confined electron states. For P > 30 kbar the
X -minima of the Ga0.7 Al0.3 As layers become the minimum of the
conduction-band states of the system and electrons are no longer
confined to the GaAs layer. For P  40 kbar the X -minima are the
lowest energy states in the GaAs layer and both the barrier and
well materials become indirect.
In this Letter, the combined effects of hydrostatic pressure
and temperature on donor impurity binding energy in GaAs/
Ga0.7 Al0.3 As double quantum well (DQW) under the external fields
such as electric and magnetic fields are investigated for the pres-
sure values where there is no Γ – X crossover.
2. Theory
In the effective mass approximation, the hydrostatic pressure
and temperature dependent Hamiltonian for a shallow-donor im-
purity under the electric and magnetic fields is given by
 2
1 e
H =− e +
p  (r )
A
2me ( P , T ) c
e2
+ V ( z, P , T ) − + eF z (1)
ε( P , T )r
 E. Kasapoglu / Physics Letters A 373 (2008) 140–143 141

where p  e is momentum operator, A  (r ) is the vector potential as-

sociated with the magnetic field (magnetic field is applied parallel
to the growth direction i.e. B  = (0, 0, B ) and vector potential is
written form A  (r ) = 1 ( B × r ) = (− B y , B x, 0) to describe the ap-
2 2 2
plied magnetic field), V ( z, P , T ) is the pressure and temperature
dependent confinement potential in the z-direction for the elec-
tron, F is the electric field strength, P is the hydrostatic pressure
in units of kbar and T is the temperature in units of Kelvin, r is
the distance
 between the electron  and the donor impurity site
(r = ρ 2 + (z − zi )2 ) and ρ (= x2 + y 2 ) is the distance between
the electron and impurity in the (x– y) plane. ε ( P , T ) is the pres-
sure and temperature dependent dielectric constant.
The pressure and temperature dependent effective mass for the
electron is given by [8,9]
mo
me ( P , T ) = 2 1
(2)
1 + E Γp [ + ]
E Γ ( P ,T )
g E Γg ( P , T )+Δo
Fig. 1. The schematic representation of DQW for P = 0 and F = 0 and amplitude of
where mo is the free electron mass, E Γp = 7.51 eV, Δo = 0.341 eV normalized first subband wave function of electron-|ψ(z̃)|2 versus the normalized
position ( z̃i = L /ao , where ao = ε ( P , T )h̄2 /me ( P , T )e 2 ).
and E Γg ( P , T ) is the pressure and temperature dependent energy
gap for the GaAs quantum well at the Γ -point in units of eV is
given by [8] where N is the normalization constant, λ and β are the variational
parameters. The ground state impurity energy is evaluated by min-
E Γg ( P , T ) = E Γg (0, T ) + 1.26 × 10−2 P − 3.77 × 10−5 P 2 (3) imizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) with
respect to the λ and β .
where E Γg (0, T ) = 1.519 − (5.405 × 10−4 T 2 )/( T + 204) eV. The ground state donor binding energy is calculated as
The pressure and temperature dependent static dielectric con-
stant is given by [6,10] E b ( P , T ) = E z ( P , T ) − minΨ | H |Ψ  (9)
λ,β
⎧
⎪
⎪ 12.74 exp[−1.73 × 10−3 P ] exp[9.4 × 10−5 ( T − 75.6)] where E z ( P , T ) is the ground-state energy of electron obtained
⎪
⎨ from Schrödinger equation in the z-direction without the impu-
for T < 200 K,
ε( P , T ) = rity.
⎪
⎪ 13.18 exp[−1.73 × 10−3 P ] exp[20.4 × 10−5 ( T − 300)]
⎪
⎩
for T  200 K, 3. Results and discussions
(4)
In our calculations we used aluminum concentration x = 0.3
where the charge image effects have not been considered (i.e. and due to the fact that both the electron effective mass and
ε w ( P , T ) = εb ( P , T )). dielectric constant mismatches in the barrier and wells are impor-
The confinement potentials of DQW is given by tant especially in the small dimensions of the GaAs/GaAlAs quan-
⎧ tum wells we have considered both the electron effective mass and
⎪ V ( P , T ), z < −b,
⎪
⎪ dielectric constant as constants through the heterostructure.
⎪
⎪ 0 −b < z < −a,
⎨ , Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) show the variation of the ground state bind-
V ( z, P , T ) = V ( P , T ), −a < z < a, (5) ing energy of donor impurity in DQW versus the normalized im-
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0, a < z < b, purity position for different hydrostatic pressure, temperature and
⎪
⎩ magnetic field values for barrier width-L b = 25 Å, and L b = 50 Å,
V ( P , T ), z > b,
respectively. As seen in these figures, donor impurity binding en-
where a and b are defined in Fig. 1. The pressure dependence of ergy versus the donor position behaves like a map of the spatial
the well and barrier widths is obtained from Refs. [1,2,11,12]. distribution of the ground state wave function of the electron.
The barrier height is given by [12–14] The binding energy for donor impurity located in barrier center is
smaller than in the center of wells since the probability of finding
V ( P , T ) = Q c  E Γg (x, P , T ) (6) of the electron in the wells is higher than the barrier. As increases
where Q c (= 0.6) is the conduction band offset parameter, x is the the barrier width the coupling between the wells decreases and
mole fraction of aluminum in Ga1−x Alx As layer,  E Γg (x, P , T ) is so the impurity binding energy increases for donor located in the
the band gap difference between quantum well and the barrier well’s center while it decreases for donor impurity located in the
matrix at the Γ -point as a function of pressure and temperature barrier center.
and it is given by [15,16] As the hydrostatic pressure increases: dielectric constant, the
potential height, the first subband energy, well and barrier widths
 E Γg (x, P , T ) =  E Γg (x) + D (x) P + G (x) T (7) decrease the effective mass increases for electron, leading to more
confinement of the electron in the z-direction and thus the donor
where  E Γg (x) = (1.155x + 0.37x2 ) eV, D (x) = [−(1.3 × binding energy increases for all impurity positions and well dimen-
10−3 )x] eV/kbar and G (x) = [(−1.11 × 10−4 )x] eV/K. sions. This increment in donor binding energy due to the hydro-
We choose the trial wave function as a product of the three- static pressure is lower than that due to the magnetic field. As the
dimensional wave function in the Coulomb potential with the magnetic field increases, donor impurity binding energy increases,
ground state wave function of the DQW: since the magnetic field gives an additional lateral confinement of

2  the electron and donor in the x– y plane and the probability of
ρ (z − zi )2 finding of the electron and donor in the same plane increases. The
Ψ (ρ , z) = N exp − + ψ( z) (8)
λ2 β2 energy levels of the donor electron are quantized by the effects of
142 E. Kasapoglu / Physics Letters A 373 (2008) 140–143
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. The variation of the ground state binding energy of donor impurity in DQW
versus the normalized impurity position for different hydrostatic pressure, tempera-
ture and magnetic field values: (a) L b = 25 Å, L 1 = L 2 = L = 50 Å and (b) L b = 50 Å,
L 1 = L 2 = L = 50 Å.
the spatial confinement in the z-direction and the magnetic field
confinement in the x– y plane (Landau levels). The trial wave func-
tion with the two-variational parameters used to obtain the donor
binding energy adjusts the transverse and longitudinal wave func-
tion extension. So, even in large well widths where the energy
level spacing is sufficiently narrow, the wave function in Eq. (8)
to obtain the donor binding energy is suitable.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. The variation of binding energy of donor impurity located (1) in the center
of left well (lwc), (2) in the center of barrier (bc) and (3) in the center of right
well (rwc) of DQW for L b = 25 Å, L 1 = L 2 = L = 50 Å width versus the electric field
strength for different hydrostatic pressure and magnetic field values: (a) T = 50 K
and (b) T = 500 K.
As the temperature increases: dielectric constant and first sub-
band energy increase while effective mass and potential height of
electron decrease and so donor binding energy decreases for all
impurity positions and well dimensions.
In Figs. 3(a) and (b), we show the variation of binding energy
of donor impurity located (1) in the center of the left well (lwc),
(2) in the center of the barrier (bc) and (3) in the center of the
right well (rwc) of DQW with L b = 25 Å, L 1 = L 2 = L = 50 Å width
versus the electric field strength in the presence of hydrostatic
pressure and magnetic field for T = 50 K and T = 500 K, respec-
 E. Kasapoglu / Physics Letters A 373 (2008) 140–143
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. The variation of binding energy of donor impurity located (1) in the center
of left well (lwc), (2) in the center of barrier (bc) and (3) in the center of right
well (rwc) of DQW for L b = 50 Å, L 1 = L 2 = L = 50 Å width versus the electric field
strength for different hydrostatic pressure and magnetic field values: (a) T = 50 K
and (b) T = 500 K.
tively. When the electric field is applied, the probability of finding
electron in the well on the left side increases while it decreases
in the well on the right side and in the barrier since the electron
moves in the opposite direction to the electric field. Thus the bind-
ing energy decreases for donors located in the bc and rwc while
it increases for donor located in the lwc as electric field increases
(note that the change in the binding energy for located in the bc
versus the electric fields is very smooth). For all donor positions
143
which are mentioned (lwc, bc, rwc) the enhancement in the bind-
ing energy due to the hydrostatic pressure is lower than that of
the magnetic field and as the temperature increases donor binding
energy decreases.
The variation of binding energy of donor impurity located in
the lwc (1), in the barrier bc (2) and in the rwc (3) of DQW with
L 1 = L 2 = L b = 50 Å width versus the electric field strength for
different hydrostatic pressure and magnetic field values is given
in Figs. 4(a) and (b) for T = 50 K and T = 500 K, respectively.
As the well dimensions increase, the localization of the electron
increases in the well, but the probability of finding the electron
and donor impurity in the same plane decreases and so impurity
binding energy is lower than that of the narrow wells. As known,
the impurity binding energy becomes more sensitive to the elec-
tric field in the large well dimensions since the energy of electron
becomes weaker and the electron that approaches the well bot-
tom. The electron is mostly localized in the lwc even in the small
electric field value thus the binding energy of donor impurity lo-
cated on the barrier and right well become constant and no longer
affected from pressure.
4. Conclusions
As a result, the effects of hydrostatic pressure and temperature
on donor impurity binding energy in GaAs/Ga0.7 Al0.3 As DQW in
the presence of the electric and magnetic fields by using a vari-
ational technique within the effective-mass approximation have
been investigated. The results show that an increment in tem-
perature results in a decrement in donor impurity binding energy
while an increment in the pressure for the same temperature en-
hances the binding energy and the effects of the magnetic field
on donor binding energy are higher than that of the pressure ef-
fects. The obtained results are consistent with theoretical studies
on this subject. Furthermore, the obtained results in this study are
larger than the ones calculated in previous studies [5,17] due to
Gaussian-type trial wave function with the two-variational param-
eters. It is important to mention that the results are expected to
be more realistic as the hydrogenic-type trial wave function than
that of Gaussian-type trial wave function with the one-parameter.
References
[1] A.M. Elabsy, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 6 (1994) 10025.
[2] S.Y. López, N. Parras-Montenegro, C.A. Duque, Phys. Status Solidi C 0 (2003)
648.
[3] A.L. Morales, A. Montes, S.Y. López, N. Raigoza, C.A. Duque, Phys. Status Solidi
C 0 (2003) 652.
[4] N. Raigoza, A.L. Morales, A. Montes, N. Parras-Montenegro, C.A. Duque, Phys.
Rev. B 69 (2004) 045323.
[5] E. Kasapoglu, H. Sari, I. Sökmen, Physica B 362 (2005) 56;
E. Kasapoglu, H. Sari, I. Sökmen, Physica B 369 (2005) 304, Erratum.
[6] H.O. Oyoko, N. Parras-Montenegro, S.Y. Lopez, C.A. Duque, Phys. Status Solidi
C 4 (2) (2007) 298.
[7] A. John Peter, K. Navaneethakrishnan, Superlatt. Microstruct. 43 (2008) 63.
[8] H.J. Ehrenreich, J. Appl. Phys. 32 (1961) 2155.
[9] B. Webler, M. Cardona, C.K. Kim, S. Rodriguez, Phys. Rev. B 12 (1975) 5729.
[10] E. Herbert Li, Physica E 5 (2000) 215.
[11] A.L. Morales, A. Montes, S.Y. López, C.A. Duque, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14
(2002) 987.
[12] E. Kasapoglu, H. Sari, I. Sökmen, Physica B 373 (2006) 280.
[13] R.F. Kopf, M.H. Herman, M.L. Schnoes, A.P. Perley, G. Livescu, M. Ohring, J. Appl.
Phys. 71 (1992) 5004.
[14] G.A. Samara, Phys. Rev. B 27 (1983) 3494.
[15] D.E. Aspnes, Phys. Rev. B 14 (1976) 5331.
[16] B. Welber, M. Cardona, C.K. Kim, S. Rodriquez, Phys. Rev. B 12 (1975) 5729.
[17] C.L. Beltrán Ríos, N. Porras-Montenegro, Microelectron. J. 36 (2005) 369.