## Advanced material system for the design of an intermediate band solar cell: type-II CdTe quantum dots in a ZnCdSe matrix

V. Deligiannakis 1,3 , G. Ranepura 1 , I. L. Kuskovsky 2, 3 , M. C. Tamargo 1,3

1 City College of CUNY, 160 Convent Ave., New York, New York 10031, USA 2 Queens College of CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Blvd, Queens, New York 11367, USA 3 The Graduate Center of CUNY, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10016, USA

mtamargo@ccny.cuny.edu

Abstract: We explore CdTe fractional monolayer quantum dots (QDs) in a ZnCdSe host matrix for potential application in an intermediate band solar cell device. Careful consideration has been taken during the initiation of the growth process of QDs by migration enhanced epitaxy, in order to avoid the formation of undesirable interfacial layers that can form due to the lack of common anion between the two materials. A superlattice structure of 100 periods of alternating QD and spacer layers is analyzed by high resolution X-ray diffraction (XRD) and photoluminescent (PL) spectroscopy. Simple arguments are used following continuum elastic theory to deduce the size of the dots and the strain within the superlattice from XRD data. This is further verified using PL and used in the energy calculations that yield the values of the intermediate band energy. The results suggest that the optimized materials are highly suitable for these high efficiency solar cells.

## Introduction :

The goal of higher efficiency in solar cells has been driving solar cell research since their inception, and its significance has never been greater than it is today. One possible solution to overcoming the single junction solar cell efficiency imposed by the Schockly-Quisser limit  of around 31% is by introducing 1 an intermediate band (IB) within a host material, as in the so called  intermediate  band  solar  cell  (IBSC) .  Using  either 2 epitaxial quantum dots (QDs) or impurities one can introduce such  a  band 3,4 .  A  two  step-photon  process  occurs  from  the valence band (VB) to the IB and from IB to the conduction band (CB), ultimately increasing light absorption of the solar spectrum without compromising the open circuit voltage (VOC) of  the  device .  The  proof  of  concept  for  an  IBSC  has  been 5 realized, and it has been shown that the short circuit current can be increased by the introduction of QDs . However, with most 6 materials  used  so  far  there  is  a  significant  drop  in  the  VOC, ultimately  limiting  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  device  with regards to a reference solar cell . 7

Type-II Zn(Cd)Te /ZnCdSe submonolayer QDs have been explored  by  our  group  for  their  promising  properties  as IBSCs 8,9,10 .The ZnCdSe host material when lattice matched to

InP has an bandgap of ~2.1 eV, in which the Zn(Cd)Te QDs can form an intermediate band with an energy 0.3 - 0.7 eV above the VB edge. The similarity of these parameters with those required for an ideal IBSC 11 makes this material system an  outstanding  candidate.  However,  it  was  recently  shown 12 that at the interface between the host material of ZnCdSe and the QDs an unintentional highly strained ZnSe interfacial layer is formed. If this is not accounted for, the strain accumulation in the thick stacked QD superlattice can be significant enough to lead  to  the  formation  of  defects  affecting  the  device performance. As is the case for QDs grown by the StranskiKrastanov  (SK)  method,  which  require  the  formation  of  a strained wetting layer, as the QD layers are repeated multiple times  the  strain  in  the  structure  increases,  decreasing  the overall  quality  of  the  material 13,14,15 . The  presence  of  an interfacial layer can also affect the bandstructure of the device. Our group recently showed that using a new shutter growth sequence we can significantly suppress the formation of the interfacial layer 16 . Now that we are able to control the interface formation,  we  set  out  to  explore  new  QD  compositions  and their  potentially  advantageous  properties.  Here  we  pursue  a new  material  system,  based  on  sub-monolayer  CdTe  QDs embedded in the ZnCdSe host material. Besides providing a platform  in  which  the  ZnSe  interfacial  layer  is  more  fully suppressed,  this system  has  several  advantages  over  the ZnCdTe QD system previously studied. Two main advantages are 1) the binary composition of the QD which makes it more easily controlled and more uniform, and 2) the large compressive strain in the QDs which produces a large valence band offset with respect to the matrix material (ZnCdSe) that can be exploited for better devices via band structure engineering. This strain can be easily offset by strain compensation in the spacer regions.

## Growth:

A schematic of the structure investigated is shown in Fig. 1(a). A CdTe/ZnCdSe  QD  superlattice (SL) is grown by a combination of conventional molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) and  migration  enhanced  epitaxy  (MEE).  The  initial  buffer layers  and  spacer  material  (ZnCdSe)  were  grown  by  MBE, whereas to achieve the formation of sub- monolayer CdTe QDs the MEE process was implemented.

The sample was grown on (001) oriented InP substrates with a 100 nm lattice matched InGaAs buffer layer in a dual chamber MBE  growth  system.  The  substrate  and  buffer  layer  were transferred to the II-VI chamber via ultra-high vacuum transfer modules. The II-VI layer structure included a 100 nm ZnCdSe buffer layer, followed by a superlattice consisting of alternating 13 to 14 monolayers of the ZnCdSe spacer layer and the submonolayer CdTe QDs. The formation of CdTe QDs by MEE  was  achieved  by  using  a  special  shutter  sequence  of alternating  Cd  and  Te  fluxes  with  short  wait  times  between them.

The  shutter  sequence  recently  developed  by  our  group entailed a growth interruption with exposure of only a Cd flux for 5 s after the growth of the ZnCdSe spacer, followed by a short wait time of 1 s without any shutters open, instead of the 5  s  wait  times  previously  performed. 12 We  have  found  that terminating  the  surface  with  only  Cd  rather  than  with  both group II elements of Zn and Cd is an important and critical step for  the  avoidance  of  the  IF  layer  formation 15 .  The  surface termination of a metal rich surface is observed by a change from  a  VI-rich  (2×1)  terminated  RHEED  pattern,  observed during  the  ZnCdSe  spacer  layer  growth,  to  a  II-rich  c(2×2) pattern after the Cd-only exposure. To grow our CdTe QDs we employed the same initial Cd-only exposure (5 s) and 1 s wait

Figure  1 . (a) Schematic  of  type-II  sub-monolayr  QD  stacks,  that would be implemented as an intermediate band region in an IBSC device. (b) Growth sequence used for the formation of QDs grown by migration enhanced epitaxy.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00088v1-figure-2a44b1ec-a675-4175-b433-a56d09538803.jpg)

time without any impingent fluxes. After this the Cd shutter was opened for 5s, and then closed and followed by a 1s wait time. This sequence was repeated three times (three cycles).

The shutter opening and closing cycles used are shown in Fig. 1(b). At the end of the MEE sequence the Cd shutters were opened for 5s before resuming the ZnCdSe spacer layer growth (by opening the Se and Zn shutters). It should be noted that in this sequence, in contrast to the previous sequence (e.g., Refs. 12) the Zn shutter remains closed throughout the entire MEE cycle, further minimizing the likelihood of any unintentional ZnSe being formed during the process.

Figure 2 (a) HR-XRD along the (004) reflection; (b) The (224) asymmetric reflection. In conjunction, these two plots allow us to accurately measure the size and strain in the QDs. (c) Thickness of the QDs necessary to position the SL(0) peak under high compressive strain with respect to the substrate as observed in HR-XRD.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00088v1-figure-853788fb-c0ec-4f63-9b9f-c4545ee3f034.jpg)

## Results:

In  Figs.  2(a)  and  2(b)  a  high-resolution  X-Ray  diffraction (HR\_XRD), for symmetric (004) and asymmetric (224) Bragg reflections, respectively, 2θ-ω scans are presented. The Bragg diffraction peaks of the different layers are clearly resolved. They include (see Fig. 2(a)): the ZnCdSe buffer layer (63.18  ), the zeroth (0 th )-order superlattice peak SL(0) (62.40  ) as well as  higher  order  satellite  peaks,  which  originate  from  the periodic  CdTe/ZnCdSe  QD  SL  structure.  Such  strong  and sharp higher order satellite peaks suggest high quality materials and  interfaces:  well-controlled  separation  of  QD  layers  and well-contained spacer segregation of materials. By combining the symmetric (004) and asymmetric (224) Bragg reflections the  strain  and  composition  of  the  different  layers  within  the structure can be accurately calculated.

The  ZnCdSe  buffer  layer  has  an  in-plane  lattice  parameter, 𝑎 ∥ 𝑆𝑝 , that is equal  to  that of the InP  substrate, 𝑎∥ 𝑆𝑢𝑏 = 5.869 Å. The  layer  is  under  slight  compressive  strain,  as  its out-of-plane lattice parameter, 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑆𝑝 = 5.882 Å , is slightly larger. The in-plane and out-of-plane lattice parameters for the SL(0)  are,  respectively, 𝑎∥ 𝑆𝐿 = 5.882 Å and 𝑎⊥ 𝑆𝐿 = 5.948 Å . These  values  suggest  that  the  superlattice  region  is  nearly pseudomorphic to the InP substrate, due to the small difference between the in-plane lattice parameters which is only 0.22%. The SL period is made up of the combination of a spacer layer of the same composition as that of the ZnCdSe buffer layer and the CdTe QD layer, which we will show can be modelled as fractional layers of CdTe. For a more complete understanding of  the  energy  at  which  the  IB  level  forms  within  the  host material, a good understanding of the strain and the thickness of  the  quantum  dots  is  necessary.  For  this  we  utilize  the symmetric and anti-symmetric HR-XRD scans (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)) using the following simple arguments and considerations.

From  the  (004)  scan  the  out-of-plane  thickness  of  the period can be obtained by the distance between higher order superlattice peaks and is calculated to be 𝑡 ⊥ 𝑆𝐿 = 43 Å . Considering the superlattice structure as a pseudo-crystal, we describe the lattice constant 𝑎⊥ 𝑆𝐿 as the weighted average of the strained individual layers that make up the period:

$$a _ { \perp } ^ { S L } = \frac { a _ { \perp } ^ { Q D s } t _ { \perp } ^ { Q D s } + a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } t _ { \perp } ^ { S p } } { t _ { \perp } ^ { S L } }$$

where , 𝑡 ⊥ 𝑆𝑝 , and 𝑡 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷 are the thickness of the ZnCdSe spacer and the average thickness of effective CdTe QD layer, respectively; 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷 and 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑆𝑝 are the strained lattice constants of the individual materials.

Fig.  2(c)  relates  the  QD  thickness  and  amount  of  strain imparted on the QDs necessary to match the measured out-ofplane  lattice  parameter  of  the  SL  from  Eq.  (1).  For  the unstrained  case  (0%  strain)  a  significantly  thicker  dot  is necessary,  more than double  than for the fully strained case (100% strain). By using Eq. (2), which relates the out of-planelattice  parameter  to  the  elastic  constants  of  the  SL,  we  can accurately calculate the thickness and strain of the QDs for this sample 17 :

$$a _ { \perp } ^ { S L } = \left ( 1 + \frac { 2 C _ { 1 2 } ^ { S L } } { C _ { 1 1 } ^ { S L } } \right ) ( a _ { 0 } ^ { S L } - a _ { \| } ^ { S L } ) + a _ { \| } ^ { S L }$$

Here 𝐶12 𝑆𝐿 and 𝐶 11 𝑆𝐿 are  the  weighted  averages  of  the  elastic constants of the individual unstrained CdTe and ZnCdSe layers given by 18 :

$$C _ { i j } ^ { S L } = \frac { C _ { i j } ^ { Q D s } t _ { 0 } ^ { Q D s } + C _ { i j } ^ { S p } t _ { 0 } ^ { S p } } { t _ { 0 } ^ { S L } } \, _ { \substack { c i \dots \\ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } } } ( 3 ) \, _ { \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \ \mathfrak { m } \\. o d s \quad. s n \quad. c i \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

where 𝑡 0 𝑄𝐷𝑠 , 𝑡 0 𝑆𝑝 , 𝑡 0 𝑆𝐿 are thickness of the unstrained corresponding layers. These  thicknesses, as well as the thickness of strained layers can be conveniently expressed in terms of the number of corresponding monolayers, 𝑁 (𝑖) , which stay constant between the strained and unstrained cases:

$$t _ { \perp, 0 } ^ { S L } = \frac { a _ { \perp, 0 } ^ { Q D s } } { 2 } N ^ { Q D s } + \frac { a _ { \perp, 0 } ^ { S p } } { 2 } N ^ { S p } \, & \quad \begin{pmatrix} 4 \end{pmatrix} & \text{e} \\ \text{u} \\ \text{a}$$

Correspondingly,

$$\varpi n c { s p o u n g i y }, \\ a _ { 0, \perp } ^ { S L } = \frac { a _ { 0, \perp } ^ { Q D s } \frac { a _ { \perp } ^ { Q D s } } { 2 } N ^ { Q D s } + a _ { 0, \perp } ^ { S p } \frac { a _ { 0, \perp } ^ { S p } } { 2 } N ^ { S p } } { t _ { 0, \perp } ^ { S L } } \\ \intertext { v e n t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t h e t }$$

We note here that using Eq. (4), weighted averages for elastic constants are also expressed in terms of number of monolayers and lattice constants, instead of layer thicknesses.

In  Eq.  5  important  parameters  that  are  to  be  considered  are 𝑎 0 𝑆𝑝 and 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑆𝑝 . The former is known, since the composition of the spacer is the same as that of the buffer; however, the latter is not since we don't know the degree of relaxation, if any, in the spacers.  We,  nevertheless,  know  the  range  in  which  the  inplane  lattice  parameter  of  the  spacer, 𝑎 ∥ 𝑆𝑝 can  vary.  This  is between 𝑎 𝑆𝑢𝑏 (fully strained) and 𝑎 0 𝑆𝑝 (fully relaxed). Therefore,  we  will  take  this,  in  further  calculations,  as  a varying parameter, which, as shown below, uniquely determines  the  unknowns (𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷𝑠 , 𝑁 𝑄𝐷𝑠 , 𝑡 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷𝑠 ) for  our  given case via the measured SL lattice parameters and period.

Using Eqs. (4) and (5) we can get expressions for number of monolayers as follows:

$$\text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w } \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{w} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \, \text{d} \,
N ^ { Q D } = 2 t _ { \perp } ^ { S L } \frac { ( a _ { \perp } ^ { S L } - a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } ) } { a _ { \perp } ^ { Q D } ( a _ { \perp } ^ { Q D } - a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } ) }$$

$$N ^ { S p } = 2 t _ { \perp } ^ { S L } \frac { \left ( a _ { \perp } ^ { Q D } - a _ { \perp } ^ { S L } \right ) } { a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } \left ( a _ { \perp } ^ { Q D } - a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } \right ) }$$

Inserting Eqs. (6), (7) and (3) back into Eq. (2) an expression in which 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷 is the only unknown  parameter,  can  be formulated:

$$\left ( a _ { \perp } ^ { S L } - a _ { \| } ^ { S L } \right ) & = \left ( 1 + 2 \frac { \beta a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } C _ { 1 2 } ^ { Q D s } + x a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } C _ { 1 2 } ^ { S p } } { \beta a _ { \perp } ^ { S p } C _ { 1 1 } ^ { Q D s } + x a _ { 0 } ^ { S p } C _ { 1 1 } ^ { S p } } \right ) \times \\ \\ & \left ( \frac { \alpha a _ { 0 } ^ { Q D s } + x a _ { 0 } ^ { S p } } { \alpha + x } - a _ { \| } ^ { S L } \right )$$

$$( 8 )$$

Here 𝑥 = 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷 (𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷 -𝑎⊥ 𝐿 ) 𝑆 , 𝛼 = 𝑎 0 𝑄𝐷𝑠 (𝑎 ⊥ 𝑆𝐿 -𝑎0 𝑆𝑝 ) , 𝛽 = 𝑎 0 𝑄𝐷𝑠 (𝑎 ⊥ 𝑆𝐿 -𝑎⊥ ) 𝑆𝑝 ; 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷𝑠 can  be  calculated  from 𝑎 ∥ 𝑆𝑝 via  an equation similar to Eq. (2). Eq. (8) can be solved for 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷𝑠 and ultimately for 𝑁 𝑄𝐷𝑠 , 𝑁 𝑆𝑝 and the thicknesses of both the QDs and the spacer.

The out-of plane lattice parameter for the QDs is calculated to be 𝑎 ⊥ 𝑄𝐷𝑠 = 7.037 Å . This value does not change much when varying  the  spacer  in-plane  lattice  parameter  (effectively changing the strain) within the range we are working in. But, the  fractional  coverage  of  the  CdTe  QDs  changes  in  our calculation significantly, as illustrated in Figure 3. The effective number of monolayers varies from 0.66 to 0.76. In both  scenarios  (strained  and  unstrained  spacer)  the  average thickness is submonolayer in quantity for the CdTe QDs.

Figure 3 QD height (in monolayers) and effective QD thickness are plotted with respect to the strain of the spacer. Sub-monolayer quantities are found to explain the experimental data.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00088v1-figure-d59dbf9d-fe8b-44e7-9879-2a0f91ef8dc3.jpg)

Figure 4 (a) Low temperature intensity dependent PL from the QDs as well from the ZnCdSe spacer and buffer region. The inset illustrates the type-II band alignment in which holes are confined within the QDs and electrons within ZnCdSe spacer. (b) Intensity dependent PL measurement confirms the type-II band alignment between QDs and host material. (inset) Plot of peak position of the QD PL as a function of excitation intensity, exhibiting a 1/3 power law fit. The energy of the ZnCdSe peak is plotted for comparison.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00088v1-figure-57a66347-2c66-4430-8c0f-33503cd3b272.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00088v1-figure-a75a7759-ed98-4b77-869c-c90d7e30921a.jpg)

In order to investigate the suitability of the structure for an IBSC,  we  measured  its  luminescent  properties.  Figure  4a shows  the  PL  spectrum  of  the  structure  taken  at  75  K.  PL emission was acquired by exciting the sample using a 50 mW 405 nm diode laser and the collected PL was analyzed with a HR4000 Ocean Optics spectrometer. In figure 3a two peaks can be identified from the spectrum. A sharp peak around 2.04 eV  is  due  to  the  ZnCdSe  buffer  and  spacer  layers.  The difference  in  energy  from  the  bandgap  energy  of  a  lattice matched Zn0.51Cd0.49Se to InP (around 2.1 eV) is to be expected since  the  buffer  layer  was  grown  with  a  slightly  Cd  rich composition,  as  indicated  by  the  XRD 19 . A  broad  peak observed at lower energies, centered around 1.86 eV, is due to the CdTe QDs. Such a broad peak is reasonable due to expected size  distribution  and  the  type-II  nature  of  the  recombination process. Juxtaposed is a spectrum taken at a lower excitation intensity and a noticeable shift to lower energy of the QD peak by as much as 40 meV is observed.

the peak position shift is plotted for the QDs and the ZnCdSe spacer. There is a clear shift in energy with excitation power for  the  QD  PL  that  fits  very  well  with  a  1/3  power  law  fit, whereas the peak of the maximum excitation position of the ZnCdSe  does  not  change  with  intensity. At  the  lowest excitation intensity, assuming a flat band potential between the QDs and the host material, a difference in energy of ~200 meV is observed between the band to band transition in the barrier layer (2.04 eV) and the type II transition arising from the QDs. This  value  suggests  that  the  QDs  in  our  structure  are  very small, thus shifting the confined hole energy level to near the VB edge of the ZnCdSe spacer.

Intensity dependent PL shown in Figure 4(b) was taken to verify the type-II band alignment for the low energy peak.  In a type- II heterostructure, with higher excitation intensity an increased  flux  of  electrons  is  promoted  into  the  conduction band, producing a band bending effect at the interface between the QDs and the host material. The staggered band alignment between the two materials forms a triangular potential well at this interface in which the energy scales as a function of the cube root of the excitation intensity 20 . In the inset in figure 4(b),

Using Vegard's law and the known band alignments for these two materials 21,22 , the band structure for the QD region is approximated  in  figure  5(a).  There  is  a  large  valence  band offset  of  0.86  eV  between  ZnCdSe  and  CdTe  and  the  large quantum confinement of the holes due to their very small size gives rise to the observed  200  meV  energy  difference. Increasing the size of the dots will allow the confined energy level of the QDs to shift closer to the CdTe valence band edge, thus reducing the type-II transition energy and increasing the energy difference between the QDs and the host material to the desired 0.5 - 0.7 eV range based on the device design. The large  VBO  of  0.86  eV  provides  sufficient  tunability  of  the confinement energy in order to achieve these values. However, since the heavy hole energy level also depends strongly on the strain of the QD within the host material, strain effects must be

Figure 5 (a) Schematic band diagram between unstrained CdTe and ZnCdSe lattice matched to InP. (b) Band energy diagram from  calculated  values  of  composition  ascertained  from  HRXRD and taking into account for effects of strain.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00088v1-figure-35eea1f0-c69e-484c-9e12-384ff5439bfa.jpg)

considered. Due to the high lattice mismatch, between ZnCdSe and CdTe, biaxial compressive strain gives rise to hydrostatic strain component and to a first order approximation there is a splitting  of  the  light  and  heavy  hole  levels  due  to  the  shear component  of  the  strain  that  can  be  calculated  by  standard deformation potential theory. 23 The equation below calculates the new heavy hole (HH) energy due to strain,

$$\Delta E _ { h h } = a _ { \nu } \left ( \varepsilon _ { x x } + \varepsilon _ { y y } + \varepsilon _ { z z } \right ) + \frac { b } { 2 } \left ( \varepsilon _ { x x } + \varepsilon _ { y y } - 2 \varepsilon _ { z z } \right ) \quad \left ( 9 \right ) \quad \text{$\stackrel{ \dots } { T o } \\ \text{use} \quad \text{.}$$

Where 𝑎𝜈 is the linear hydrostatic deformation potential for the valence band maxima and 𝑏 is the shear uniaxial deformation potential.  The strain components are given by,

$$\varepsilon = \varepsilon _ { x x } = \varepsilon _ { y y } = \frac { a _ { S u b } - a _ { Q D S } } { a _ { S u b } } \quad \quad ( 1 0 ) \quad \ \ \ t u$$

and

$$\varepsilon _ { z z } = \frac { - 2 C _ { 1 2 } } { C _ { 1 1 } } \varepsilon \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \\ \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \\ \\ \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matarray} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} ( 1 1 ) \\ \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \ \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \ \begin {matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin {matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \ \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix}; \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix } \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix` \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrixr} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{mat} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matr} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{patrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{pat} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \end{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \quad \begin{matrix} \$$

Typically,  compressive  strain  increases  the  band  gap  of  the material  and,  depending  on  how  large  the  strain  is,  it  could significantly increase the VBO in a heterostructure. In our case this is highly desirable and allows for another tuning parameter to obtain the idealized value for the IB band. Due to the large lattice mismatch between the CdTe QDs and the spacer regions a  large  shift  in  the  heavy  hole  energy  can  ultimately  be observed  that  would  be  beneficial  in  being  able  to  tune  the energy level of the IB band.  From our calculation in HR-XRD we find that the QDs are partially relaxed (35%). Thus, we find the VBO is now ~ 1.0 eV. The HH energy is calculated, using self-consistent variational calculation of the Schrödinger equation, 24 for a single monolayer of CdTe under these strain conditions, to be 289 meV, illustrated in figure 5(b).  This is in close  agreement  of  our  PL  results.  Below  is  a  list  of  the materials parameters used for these calculations.

| Table I.   | Material Parameters used in calculations   | Material Parameters used in calculations   | Material Parameters used in calculations   | Material Parameters used in calculations   | Material Parameters used in calculations   | Material Parameters used in calculations   | Material Parameters used in calculations   |
|------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|            | c 11 (x10 10 Pa)                           | c 12 (x10 10 Pa)                           | c 12 (x10 10 Pa)                           |   (eV)                                   |   (eV)                                   |                                            |                                            |
| ZnSe       | 8.26 25                                    | 4.98                                       | 25                                         | 1.23 26                                    | -1.20 26                                   |                                            |                                            |
| CdSe       | 6.67 27                                    | 4.63                                       | 27                                         | 0.90 25                                    | -1.26 27                                   |                                            |                                            |
| CdTe       | 5.62 25                                    | 3.94 25                                    | 0.89                                       | 26                                         | -1.20 25                                   |                                            |                                            |

## Conclusion:

We have successfully grown submonlayer CdTe QDs within a ZnCdSe  host.  The  structural  quality  of  the  material  was confirmed by the HR-XRD and their optical properties were established using intensity dependent PL. These materials have interesting properties that could be used towards the design of an ideal IBSC. The large VBO offset that exists between CdTe and the ZnCdSe host material, which is sufficient to provide the needed IB energy values, can be further tuned with strain. To have an accurate understating of the strain of the QDs we used HR-XRD to analyze the superlattice structure. We found that the dots  were  partially  relaxed,  and  their fractional coverage could be extracted from the strain measured within the spacer region. Even though the dots were partially relaxed, our calculations show that we should expect an increase in the VBO of about 140 meV due to strain, which is helpful towards tuning the IB energy level to the desired value of 0.7eV. From the  PL  measurements and energy calculations we concluded that the dots  in  the  current  structure are too  small  (~1 monolayer in height) and thus the growth must be modified to achieve larger (thicker) dots.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by NSF CBET award  number  1512017  and  NSF  award  number  HRD1547830 (CREST-IDEALS).

## References:

- [1]  W.  Shockley,  H.J.  Queisser,  Detailed  balance  limit  of efficiency  of  p-n  junction  solar  cells,  Journal  of  Applied Physics 32 (1961) 510519.
- [2] A. Luque, A. Martí, Increasing the efficiency of ideal solar cells  by  photon  induced  transitions  at  intermediate  levels, Physical Review Letters 78 (1997) 5014-5017.
- [3] A. Martí, L. Cuadra, A. Luque, Quantum dot intermediate band solar cell, Conference Record of the 28th IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference, New York, USA, (2000) 940-943.
- [4] A. Luque, A. Martí, E. Antolín, C. Tablero, Intermediate bands versus levels in non-radiative recombination, Physica B 382 (2006) 320-327.
- [5] I. Ramiro, J. Villa, C. Tablero, E. Antolín, A. Luque, A. Martí, Analysis of the intermediate-band absorption properties of  type-II  GaSb/GaAs  quantum-dot  photovoltaics,  Physical Review B 96 (2017) 125422.
- [6] (6) S.M. Hubbard, C.D. Cress, C.G. Bailey, R.P. Raffaelle, S.G.  Bailey,  D.M.  Wilt,  Effect  of  strain  compensation  on quantum  dot  enhanced  GaAs  solar  cells,  Applied  Physics Letters 92, (2008) 123512.
- [7] L.  Zhu,  K.H.  Lee,  M.  Yamaguchi,  H.  Akiyama,  Y. Kanemitsu,  K.  Araki,  N.  Kojima,  Analysis  of  nonradiative recombination  in  quantum  dot  solar  cells  and  materials, Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications (2019), doi.org/10.1002/pip.3110.
- [8]  S.  Dhomkar,  U.  Manna,  L.  Peng,  R.  Moug,  I.C.  Noyan, M.C. Tamargo, I.L. Kuskovsky, Feasibility of submonolayer ZnTe/ZnCdSe quantum dots  as  intermediate  band  solar  cell material  system,  Solar  Energy  Materials  &amp;  Solar  Cells,  117 (2013) 604-609.
- [9] S. Dhomkar, U. Manna, I.C. Noyan, M.C. Tamargo, I.L. Kuskovsky,  Vertical  correlation  and  miniband  formation  in submonolayer Zn (Cd) Te/ZnCdSe type-II quantum dots for intermediate  band  solar  cell  application,  Applied  Physics Letters 103 (2014)18, 181905.
- [10] C.M. Imperato, G.A. Ranepura, L.I. Deych, I.L. Kuskovsky, Theoretical Determination of Optimal Material

Parameters  for  ZnCdTe/ZnCdSe  Quantum  Dot  Intermediate Band Solar Cells, Journal of Electronic Materials, 47 (2018) 4325-4331.

- [11] M.Y. Levy, C. Honsberg, A. Marti, A. Luque, Quantum Dot  Intermediate  Band  Solar  Cell  Material  Systems  with Negligible Valence Band Offsets, Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (2005) 90-93.
- [12] S. Dhomkar, I.L. Kuskovsky, U. Manna, I.C. Noyan, M.C. Tamargo,  Optimization  of  growth  conditions  of  type-II  Zn (Cd) Te/ZnCdSe submonolayer quantum dot superlattices for intermediate band solar cells, Journal of Vacuum Science &amp; Technology B 31(3) (2013).
- [13] A. Marti, N. López, E. Antolín, E. Cánovas, A. Luque, C. R. Stanley, C. D. Farmer, and P. Díaz, Emitter degradation in quantum  dot  intermediate  band  solar  cells,  Applied  Physics Letters 90 (2007) 233510.
- [14]  V.  Popescu,  G.  Bester,  M.C.  Hanna,  A.G.  Norman,  A. Zunger,  Theoretical  and  Experimental  Examination  of  the Intermediate-Band Concept for Strain-Balanced (In,Ga)As/Ga(As,P) Quantum Dot Solar Cells, Physical Review B 78 (2008) 20532.
- [15] A. Takata, R. Oshima, Y. Shoji, K. Akahane, Y. Okada, Fabrication of 100 layer-stacked InAs/GaNAs straincompensated quantum dots on GaAs (001) for application to intermediate band solar cell, 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (2010).
- [16] V. Deligiannakis, S. Dhomkar, M.S. Claro, I.L. Kuskovsky, M.C.Tamargo Interface Modification in Type-II ZnCdSe/Zn(Cd)Te  QDs  for  High  Efficiency  Intermediate Band Solar Cells, Journal  of  Crystal  Growth  512  15  (2019) 203-207.
- [17]  T.  Rieger,  T.  Riedl,  E.  Neumann,  D.  Grützmacher,  J. Lindner, A. Pawlis, Strain Compensation in Single ZnSe/CdSe Quantum Wells: Analytical Model and Experimental Evidence, ACS Applied Materials &amp; Interfaces 9(9) (2017).
- [18]  S.J.  Polly, C.G.  Bailey,  A.J.  Grede,  D.V.  Forbes,  S.M. Hubbard, Calculation of strain compensation thickness for IIIV  semiconductor  quantum  dot  superlattices, Journal of Crystal Growth 454 (2016).
- [19]  A.  Sweiti,  F.  Medina,  L.  Martinez,  A.  Lopez-Rivera, Photoluminescence spectroscopy and effective  concentration determination  of  CdxZn1-xSe,  Semiconductor  Science  and Technology, 23(3) (2008) 035019.
- [20] F. Hatami, M. Grundmann, N. N. Ledentsov, F. Heinrichsdorff,  R.  Heitz,  J.  Böhrer,  Z.I.  Alferov,  Carrier dynamics  in  type-II GaSb/GaAs  quantum  dots,  Physical Review B, 57(8) (1998) 4635-4641.
- [21] M.C. Tamargo, II-VI Semiconductor Materials and their Applications  (Optoelectronic  Properties  of  Semiconductors and Superlattices) 1st Edition, CRC Press (1997)
- [22]  M.  Ściesiek,  J.  Suffczyński,  W.  Pacuski,  M.  ParlińskaWojtan,  T.  Smoleński,  P.  Kossacki,  A.  Golnik,  Effect  of electron-hole  separation  on  optical  properties  of  individual Cd(Se,Te)  quantum  dots,  Physical  Review  B  93,  (2016) 195313.

[23]  S.L.  Chuang,  Physics  of  Photonic  Devices,  2nd  ed. Hoboken: Wiley (2012) 132-142.

- [24] I.V. Ponomarev,  L.I.  Deych,  V.A.  Shuvayev,  A.A. Lisyansky, Self-consistent approach for calculations of exciton binding energy in quantum wells, Physica E 25 (2005) 539.

[25]  Y.H.  Li,  X.G.  Gong,  S.H.  Wei,  Ab  initio  all-electron calculation of absolute volume deformation potentials of IVIV,  III-V,  and  II-VI  semiconductors:  The  chemical  trends, Physical Review B 73 (2006) 245206.

- [26]  C.G.  Van  de  Walle,  Band  lineups  and  deformation potentials  in  the  model-solid  theory,  Physical  Review  B  39 (1989) 1871.
- (27)    H.  J.  Lozykowski,  V.K.  Shastri,  Excitonic  and Raman properties  of  ZnSe/ZnCdSe  strained  layer  quantum  wells Journal of Applied Physics 69 (1991) 3235.
V. Deligiannakis G. Ranepura I. L. Kuskovsky M. C. Tamargo
Advanced material system for the design of an intermediate band solar cell: type-II CdTe quantum dots in a ZnCdSe matrix
We explore CdTe fractional monolayer quantum dots (QDs) in a ZnCdSe host
matrix for potential application in an intermediate band solar cell device.
Careful consideration has been taken during the initiation of the growth
process of QDs by migration enhanced epitaxy, in order to avoid the formation
of undesirable interfacial layers that can form due to the lack of common anion
between the two materials. A superlattice structure of 100 periods of
alternating QD and spacer layers is analyzed by high resolution X-ray
diffraction (XRD) and photoluminescent (PL) spectroscopy. Simple arguments are
used following continuum elastic theory to deduce the size of the dots and the
strain within the superlattice from XRD data. This is further verified using PL
and used in the energy calculations that yield the values of the intermediate
band energy. The results suggest that the optimized materials are highly
suitable for these high efficiency solar cells.