arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 13 Feb 2005

Transcription

1 Simple Estimation of X Trion Binding Energy in Semiconductor Quantum Wells R. A. Sergeev 1, R. A. Suris 1, G. V. Astakov 1,, W. Ossau, and D. R. Yakovlev 1,3 1 A.F.Ioffe Pysico-Tecnical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 19401, St.Petersburg, Russia Pysikalisces Institut der Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany 3 Experimentelle Pysik, Universität Dortmund, 441 Dortmund, Germany (Dated: July 1, 011) arxiv:cond-mat/050300v1 [cond-mat.str-el] 13 Feb 005 A simple illustrative wave function wit only tree variational parameters is suggested to calculate te binding energy of negatively carged excitons (X ) as a function of quantum well widt. Te results of calculations are in agreement wit experimental data for GaAs, CdTe and ZnSe quantum wells, wic differ considerably in exciton and trion binding energy. Te normalized X binding energy is found to be nearly independent of electron-to-ole mass ratio for any quantum well eterostructure wit conventional parameters. Its dependence on quantum well widt follows an universal curve. Te curve is described by a simple penomenological equation. PACS numbers: Ca, y, 73.0.Dx, Hf I. INTRODUCTION Te first consideration of atomic-like tree-body system is regarded to Bete, by wom te attention to te ydrogen ion H as been attracted as early as 199 [1]. Te existence of negatively (ee) and positively (e) carged excitons (trions) in semiconductors, being analog of te ydrogen ions, was predicted by Lampert in 1958 []. Te investigation of tree-body complexes as a fundamental importance, particularly in semiconductors, were tere is a possibility to vary parameters in a wide spectrum. However, te experimental observation of trions in bulk semiconductors is rater difficult due to teir small binding energies. Te interest to experiment and teory of trions as grown due to te progress in te semiconductor eterostructure fabrication. Teoretical calculations performed at te end of te 1980s [3] predicted a considerable (up to tenfold) increase of te trion binding energy in quantum well eterostructures compared wit bulk semiconductors. Te first experimental observation of negatively carged excitons (X ) as been reported for CdTe-based quantum wells (QWs) by K. Keng et al in 1993 [4]. Te trions ave also been observed in QWs based on GaAs and ZnSe semiconductors [5, 6, 7]. Nowadays, a large number of experimental data on X trion are available for various types of eterostructures wit different parameters. Te main caracteristic of te negatively (or positively) carged exciton is its binding energy, i.e. te energy required to separate te trion in a neutral exciton and an unbound electron (ole). Te variation of te binding energy of X trion [8, 9, 10, 11] and, te similar system, D center [1, 13] wit te QW widt ave been extensively studied teoretically. But, most of tese calculations are limited to specific material systems. In order to acieve a better agreement wit experimental data te problem is treated wit a considerable number of fitting parameters. Tis makes it very difficult to compare trion binding energies in eterostructures based on different semiconductors, wic differ in Coulomb energies. Te aim of tis paper is to present a simple universal model, wic allows to estimate te trion binding energy (EB T ) in any semiconductor QW. In te following we sow tat te plausible value of te EB T at arbitrary QW widt can be obtained using a simple trial wave function, wic provides a vivid picture of te trion structure. Te similar approac we used in Refs. 14, 15, 16 for te analysis of te singlet and triplet states of trions in ideal twodimensional quantum wells and for te calculation of te trion ground state in eterostructures wit spatially separated carriers. In tis paper we concentrate on te negatively carged exciton, wic is caused by te reliable set of experimental data available. It is important to note, tat, commonly, te effective mass of a ole is larger tan tat of an electron. So te X is constructed of one eavy particle only, wic simplifies te teoretical consideration. Te negatively carged trion can be analyzed wit te infinitely eavy ole centered at te QW, wile te electron-to-ole mass ratio, σ = m e /m, typically being in te range of 0.01 < σ < 1, taken as a perturbation parameter. In section II, te experimental data for te trion binding energy in eterostructures of different material systems are summarized and discussed. In section III, a simple model of te trion wit a eavy ole in an ideal QW is proposed and te binding energy dependence versus te effective well widt is variationally calculated. Te mass ratio dependencies of te exciton and te trion binding energies in te quantum well are considered in section IV. In section V, te corrections to te trion binding energy due to QW imperfections are discussed. II. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Carged excitons in various eterostructures ave been extensively studied during te last decade. Experimental data of te X trion binding energy (EB T ) for ZnSe, CdTe and GaAs quantum wells of various widts (L z )

2 TABLE I: Te original experimental data collected for various semiconductor materials. Note, tat for correct comparison te binding energy of isolated trion, wic is unperturbed by interaction wit two-dimensional electron gas, must be taken into account [18, 31]. Terefore, we eiter select te data for undoped QWs or extrapolate te binding energies in doped structures to te low-concentration limit. In te latter case te initial values are given in brackets. ZnSe L z, Å EB, T mev 8.9 a 6.6 a 5.8 a 5. a 5.3 a 4.4 a 4.0 a 1.4 a.5 b CdTe L z, Å EB, T mev 4.4 c 3.5 c 3.4 c.9 c.1 d.5 e. c 1.8 c 1.3 f 1. l 1.1 f (.6) (1.8) (1.5) GaAs L z, Å EB, T mev.1 g i 1.1 j 0.8 k 0.9 j a Reference 18, b Reference 4, c Reference 19, d Reference 31, e Reference 5, f Reference 6, g Reference 7, Reference 8, i Reference 9, j Reference 30, k Reference 17, l unpublised. are collected in Table I and illustrated in Fig. 1a. One can clearly follow te increase of te trion binding energy by decreasing well widt. In spite of te variety of te experimental data, similarities between te trions in different semiconductors are expected. Indeed, considering te bulk trion in te frame of a simple model of a Coulomb potential wit te effective masses, one can take te Bor energy (i.e. exciton Rydberg), Ry = µe 4 /ε, and Bor radius, a B = ε/µe, as scaling parameters. Here µ = m e m /(m e +m ) is te reduced mass of te electron (m e ) and te ole (m ), ε is te permittivity, and e is te electron carge. Te binding energy of te trion normalized by 3D Rydberg is nearly independent of te electronto-ole mass ratio, σ = m e /m, and is EB T 0.055Ry for most of te semiconductors studied [3]. Te same feature is valid for te ideally D trion, i.e. for te trion being strongly localized in te growt direction wit te localization lengt muc smaller tan a B. In tis case te trion binding energy is EB T 0.48Ry and also sows no dependence on te mass ratio (σ) and on te semiconductor material [3]. Terefore, it is rater natural to expect tat te EB T does not strongly depend on σ in te case of finite widt of a quantum well. In order to compare experimental data for different materials collected in Table I, we plotted tem in Bor units, EB T/Ry against L z/a B, as sown in Fig. 1b. Te following values of 3D exciton Rydberg Ry = 4., 10, 0 mev and 3D exciton Bor radius a B = 140, 67, 40 Å were taken for GaAs, CdTe and ZnSe respectively [3]. It can be seen tat, in tese units, all dependences can be well approximated by one universal curve. For example, a plausible estimation of te trion binding energy in quantum wells of a tickness more tan a B and less tan 10a B can be obtained wit te simple fitting equation (sown in Fig. 1b by a solid line): E T B Ry 1. (1) L 3 z a B It is te simplest fitting equation found to well approximate te experimental data. Of course, it cannot be used at te limiting cases L z 0 and L z. Neverteless it gives plausible estimation of te trion binding energy for te wide range of L z and can be very useful due to its simplicity. Te fact tat te experimental results for different semiconductors coincide wit te universal curve is remarkable. It signifies tat te trion binding energy for eac effective widt of a QW is mainly scaled wit Bor units, and te influence of all oter parameters, i.e. electron-to-ole mass ratio or band offsets, is rater weak. III. TRION WITH INFINITELY HEAVY HOLE In te previous section we sowed tat te experimental data of te trion binding energy versus te QW widt are well approximated by te universal curve for all semiconductors, if te lengt and te energy scales are expressed in exciton units. In tis section we obtain te universal dependence analytically. Te requirement of te universality greatly simplifies te task, because one can leave only tose parameters of te system, wic can be directly expressed in exciton energies and quantum well widts. Moreover, in te next sections we sow tat te influence of oter parameters as no muc effect on te universal curve obtained in tis section. Te simplification is te following. Te trion is considered as a tree-body Coulomb system, using te effective mass approximation. Te reduced mass (µ) and te permittivity (ε) are supposed to be isotropic and identically in te quantum well and in te barriers. Te real potential of te quantum well is replaced by an ideal one wit infinite barriers. Te ole is taken to be muc eavier tan te electron, so te mass ratio σ = m e /m is zero. In tis case of only one eavy particle in te system, namely te ole, it occupies te center of te quantum well, were te adiabatic potential of te electrons reaces a minimum. It reduces te number of independent coordinates in te trion problem from 6 (te in-plane center-mass motion and te total angular mo-

3 3 Trion binding energy (ev) Trion binding energy, E B T / Ry m σ = m Estimation on Eq.(1) T EB 1 Ry Lz 3 a e =1 B ZnSe QWs CdTe QWs GaAs QWs Quantum well widt (Å) Calculation me σ = = 0 m ZnSe CdTe GaAs Quantum well widt, L z / a B FIG. 1: Te X trion binding energy EB T versus te QW widt L z plotted for different semiconductors: ZnSe by circles, CdTe by triangles, and GaAs by stars. Tese data are also collected in Table I. (a) Te experimental dependences are plotted in natural units, i.e. energy and lengt being expressed in [ev] and [Å], respectively. (b) Te experimental dependences are plotted in 3D exciton units. Te solid line is estimation (1). Te fill area represents a scattering of calculated dependences due to te mass ratio σ, obtained by variational metod. It is confined by two extreme cases wit σ = 1 and σ = 0. mentum along te growt direction are separated) to 5. Te number of te terms in te Hamiltonian decreases as well. Te Scrödinger equation for te trion in suc a case is (ereafter we use 3D exciton units for te lengt and te energy): [ r1 r + (V C (r 1,r ) + V QW (z 1 ) + V QW (z )) + E X B + E T B E QW e ]Ψ T (r 1,r ) = 0. () Here r 1 and r are tree-dimensional vectors connecting te ole wit te electrons, z 1 and z are teir projections on te growt direction. V C (r 1,r ) = (1/R 1/r 1 1/r ) is a Coulomb potential of te system, were R = a b r 1 r is te distance between te electrons. EB X and EB T are te exciton and trion binding energies. V QW (z) is te quantum well potential, it is 0 if z < L z / and + oterwise. Ee QW is te quantization energy of te free electron in te ground state of te quantum well: Ee QW = 1 π 1 + σ L z ( ) if σ = 0, Ee QW = π. (3) L z Te equation () is solved by a variational metod, wen te energy in te ground state, calculated by a trial function wit variational parameters, is minimized. Te most critical point, effecting te accuracy of calculations, is te proper coice of te trial function, wic sould be simple and close to te real wave function. In order to obtain te trion binding energy one as to find te trion energy and subtract it from tat of te exciton. Terefore, to minimize te mistake in te EB T calculation, te exciton energy sould be calculated in te same manner as te trion one. Consequently, te trion function sould be based on te exciton function, transforming to te latter wen one of te electrons is removed. Te simplest trial function for te exciton wit only one variational parameter (a), wic gives plausible results for te exciton binding energy in te wole range of te quantum well widts, is: Ψ X (r) = A exp( a r)z 0 (z, L z ), (4) Here r 1 is 3D vector connecting te ole and electron, and z is its projection on te growt direction. A, ere and after, is a normalization factor of te corresponding wave function. Te last multiplier, Z 0 (z, L z ), provides te additional localization of te electron in te growt direction due to te quantum well potential. It sould be stressed tat in-plane and in-growt motion of te electron in te function (4) is not separated, and te influence of te electron-ole interaction on te in-growt electron motion is substantially taken into account by te exponential multiplier. So, in contrast to te adiabatic case, were te excited states of te quantum well ave to be included (see, for example, [10]), we can take Z 0 (z, L z ) as a function of te ground state: Z 0 (z, L z ) = cos(π z ), for z L z /, L z L z Z 0 (z, L z ) = 0, for z > L z /. (5) Here r is 3D vector connecting te ole and electron, and z is its projection on te growt direction. It is easy to see tat function (4) turns into te exact wave function of te exciton in bot limiting cases of an ideal D quantum well (L z 0) and a 3D bulk semiconductor (L z ). Besides te simplicity, te function (4) as one more benefit. It can be sown tat te full kinetic energy of te electron in te case of any arbitrary quantum

4 4 well potential V QW (z) is: Ee kin = r = r Ψ X(r, z) r Ψ X(r, z) + Ee QW ΨX V QW Ψ X = a + Ee QW V QW. (6) Consequently, te quantization energy Ee QW and te mean value of te quantum well potential V QW in te Scrödinger equation can be eliminated analytically. In tis case te mistakes arising from te application of numerically metods are avoided, wic considerably simplifies te calculations. Consequently, te binding energy of te exciton (EB X ) can be estimated by te formula: E X B = min a (a V C (r) ). (7) Here V C (r) = /r is a Coulomb potential between te electron and te ole. It sould be noted, tat te parameters of te quantum well are included in te mean value of te Coulomb potential troug te last multiplier of te function (4). Te first term in Eq. (7) also as a sligt dependence on te quantum well structure if te exponent in te function (4) is replaced by any oter radial function. Te equalities similar to (6-7) are valid for all trial functions considered below. Te simplest trion function, based on te exciton function (4), is te 3-parameter Candrasekar-like one [3]: Ψ T (r 1,r ) = A(exp( a 1 r 1 a r ) + exp( a r 1 a 1 r ))(1 + cr)z 0 (z 1, L z )Z 0 (z, L z ). (8) Here a 1, a, and c are variational parameters. Analogously to te function (4), tis function transforms into te appropriate Candrasekar s one in te limiting cases of two and tree dimensions: Ψ T (r 1,r ) = A(exp( a 1 r 1 a r ) + exp( a r 1 a 1 r ))(1 + cr). (9) Te relative mistake in te trion binding energy obtained wit function (8) is known to be less tan 10% bot in te D and 3D cases. Terefore, we can expect tat te estimations, given by (8) even in te intermediate cases of te finite-widt quantum wells, are also not far from te exact values. Te calculated trion binding energy versus te quantum well widt witin te described approac is sown in te Fig. 1b (te dased line pointed by σ = 0). Te calculation is in very good agreement wit te experimental data for wide quantum wells (L z a B ). However, in narrow (L z < a B ) quantum wells te discrepancy becomes considerable. Te possible reasons for tis will be discussed in section V. IV. MASS RATIO EFFECT IN THE EXCITON AND TRION IN QW It is known tat te binding energy of X trion, expressed in Bor units, is nearly independent of electronto-ole mass ratio σ bot for an ideal D quantum wells and for 3D bulk semiconductor [3]. It is rater natural to expect tat in te quantum well of arbitrary widt te X trion binding energy to be weakly dependent on σ. Te results of calculation of te trion binding energy versus te mass ratio for a 50 Å-wide GaAs QW also confirm tis assumption [17]. Te correction to te trion binding energy due to nonzero mass ratio is supposed to be small. Terefore in wat follows we will consider it as a perturbation and calculate in te adiabatic approximation. To simplify tis calculation we start by analyzing te exciton and ten expand te results to te trion case. In te case of te exciton wit a very eavy ole, te particle wave functions are separated and te adiabatic approximation is applicable (for narrow quantum wells te influence of te in-plane electron motion on te in-growt ole localization is fully analyzed in [34]). Te Scrödinger equation for te ole motion in te growt direction is (in 3D exciton units): ( σ ( ) ) 1 + σ z + Ve adiab (z) + EB X E QW Z (z) = 0. (10) Here Z (z) is te wave function of te ole in growt direction. Ve adiab (z) is a sum of te averaged Coulomb potential of te electron and te quantum well. E QW is a quantization energy of te free ole in te ground state of te quantum well: E QW = σ π 1 + σ L. (11) z As mentioned in te previous section, te quantum well potential is taken to be ideal, wit infinite barriers. It is easy to sow tat te ole wit infinitely eavy mass (σ = 0) is located in te minimum of te adiabatic potential (z = 0). Te binding energy of te exciton in suc case is: E X B = V adiab e (0). (1) As te mass ratio increases, te binding energy of te exciton decreases because, by te definition: Z σ 1 + σ z Z E QW Z Ve adiab (z) Z V adiab e (0). (13) Qualitatively, if te mass of te ole becomes smaller, its localization along z-direction increases until it acieves te widt of te QW, and ten stays uncanged. Terefore, te main factor defining te evolution of te exciton binding energy wit te mass ratio is te ole localization in te growt direction due to te Coulomb attraction of te electron. Te simplest wave function taking tis into account is: Ψ X (r, z e, z ) = A exp( a r)z 0 (z e, L z )Z 0 (z, (bl z )). (14)

5 5 Exciton binding energy, E B X / Ry 4 3 σ = 0 σ = 0.01 σ = 1 σ = 1, L * = Quantum well widt, L z / a B FIG. : Te exciton binding energy EB X calculated versus te quantum well widt L z for different values of te mass ratio σ = m e/m. Te curves wit σ = 1 (squares) and σ = 0.01 (circles) are nearly coincide. Te curve wit σ = 0 (stars) is precisely approximated by te rescaled dependence wit σ = 1 (diamonds), te coefficient being. Here r is te 3D distance between te particles, a is te reciprocal radius of te exciton, b [0, 1] is te degree of ole localization. Te value b = 1 means te function of te ole in te growt direction is nearly te same as tat of te electron. Te opposite case, b = 0, signifies tat te ole is strongly localized in te center of te well corresponding to te case of an infinitely eavy ole. Te dependences EB X(L z) are calculated by variational metod wit te trial function (14) for few values of mass ratio σ = m e /m (see Fig. ). Te difference in energy between even te extreme curves σ = 0 and σ = 1 is rater small (<10%) for all values of L z. Moreover, it can be noticed tat te curve corresponding to σ = 0.01 is closer to te curve for σ = 1 tan σ = 0. For example, te curves σ = 0.1 and σ = 1 would not be distinguisable in te scale of te figure. It means, tat te exciton binding energy does not depend on te mass ratio for σ > 0.1 and as an extremely weak dependence if σ [0.1, 0.01]. A considerable increase of EB X takes place only if te ole is unrealistic eavy (σ < 0.01). Consequently, we can neglect te variation of te binding energy wit te mass ratio for all experimental values of te latter. Tis fact is easy to understand, if we consider te degree of te ole localization (b) in suc cases (see Fig. 3). It can be seen tat even if te ole is rater eavy (for example, σ = 0.1) te value of te ole localization in te growt direction is nearly b 1 for all L z, wereas te limiting value σ = 0 corresponds to b = 0. It means tat te exciton wave function (14) is nearly independent of te mass ratio for σ > 0.1. Consequently, due to Eq. (7), wic is valid for function (14) as well, EB X appears also z L z Hole-localization parameter, b σ = 1 σ = 0.1 σ = Quantum well widt, L z / a B FIG. 3: Te parameter of te ole in-growt localization (b) versus te quantum well widt L z for different values of te mass ratio σ = m e/m = 0.01 (circles), 0.1 (stars), and 1 (squares). to ave no dependence on σ in te same value range. Note, te curve wit σ = 0 in Fig. can easily be obtained from te curve wit σ = 1 if te abscissa is multiplied by a coefficient. A small discrepancy between tese curves takes place only for wide quantum wells, but even tere, it is nearly negligible. Tis is a consequence of te fact, tat te function (14) involves in an explicit form te electron and ole z-coordinates (z e and z ) only troug te functions Z 0. Indeed, for te case of: ) 1 Z 0 (z, L) = exp ( z πl L, (15) it can exactly be sown, tat te binding energy of te exciton, given by Eq. (7), is te same bot for b 1, L L z and b 0, L L z : E X B (L z, σ = 1) E X B ( L z, σ = 0). (16) Te equality (16) is valid even if te exponent in te exciton function (14) is replaced by any oter radial function. However, if te function Z 0 differs from a Gaussian function, te equality (16) becomes not valid. Neverteless, as can be seen in Fig., it produces a good estimation of te binding energy of te ligt-ole exciton (i.e. wit σ = 1) for a wide range of quantum well widt values. Te obtained results for te exciton can be extended to te trion. It is known tat te binding energy of te second electron in te trion is muc smaller ( 10 times) tan tat of te first one. Terefore, te negatively carged trion, containing only one eavy particle, can be considered in a rater crude model as an electron bound to an unperturbed exciton via some effective central potential V eff X (r). Here r is te distance between te electron and te center of mass of te exciton, wic is assumed to be unperturbed. In tat way, te problem of te trion becomes very similar to te exciton one con-

6 6 sidered in tis section earlier. Terefore, one can suppose tat te only effect wic causes an alteration of E T B (L z, σ) wit σ is te increase of te exciton localization in te growt direction due to te interaction wit te additional electron. By analogy to Eq. (16), te dependence of te trion binding energy wit a mass ratio σ = 1 can be obtained via rescaling te curve wit σ = 0: E T B(L z, 1) E T B( L z, 0), (17) were te latter is known from te previous section. Obviously, all possible dependences on te QW widt of te trion binding energy are confined by tese two extreme cases wit σ = 1 and σ = 0, as are presented in Fig. 1b by te filled area. Te obtained scattering of te binding energy is less tan 0%, wic is even smaller tan te experimental data dispersion. Moreover, as for te exciton binding energy, te trion EB T is expected to be about te same for σ > 0.01, allowing to take σ = 1 for any QW wit realistic parameters. All tese arguments prove te tesis, tat te binding energy of X trion is nearly independent of te mass ratio in most quantum well eterostructures. It is wort to note tat our considerations taken for GaAs-based QWs generally represent te results of previous numerical calculations [8, 9, 10, 11]. However, in contrast to tem, in te present paper te teoretical results ave been obtained wit te use of only tree fitting parameters, and an agreement is acieved for various semiconductor systems (i.e. for CdTe and ZnSe in additional to GaAs). V. CORRECTIONS TO THE TRION BINDING ENERGY In te previous sections te corrections to te trion binding energy, appearing from tose parameters of QWs, wic cannot be expressed in Bor units, are neglected for simplification. Te relatively small dispersion of te experimental data for EB T in different semiconductors allows us to conclude tat te scale of tese corrections is at most in te range of 0% (see Fig. 1b). In tis section we discuss possible corrections and evaluate teir input in te trion binding energy. Correction due to lateral localization. Te largest difference between te calculation and te experiment is observed for narrow QWs (Fig. 1b). Te reasonable explanation of tis fact is tat te trion binding energy increases due to in-plane localization at one-monolayer fluctuations of te QW widt (see, for example, [33]). As te QW becomes narrower, tese fluctuations, forming lateral islands, become more important. Te energy alteration due to tis effect strongly depends on te effective size of te islands, wic are controlled by growt conditions and expected to be individual for eac sample. Te formation of lateral islands is confirmed by te broadening of te trion line in optical spectra being observed experimentally [18]. However, it is not clear up to now, wy te results for different semiconductors are so similar. Polaron correction. It as been assumed tat te interaction between te particles is of Coulomb type, and te effective mass approximation as been used. However, te polaron correction is known to cause a considerable increase of te binding energy of D center in narrow quantum wells due to reducing te distance between te electrons [1]. It migt also explain te discrepancy of te experimental and te teoretical data for narrow quantum wells (see Fig. 1b). Te polaron correction was also used in fitting te experimental data for te trion binding energy reported in Ref. 9. Neverteless, it must be stressed, tat te polaron correction for X trion is expected to be nearly te same as for D center. But te correction for te D binding energy quickly saturates in wide quantum wells and remains quite significant tere, wereas te discrepancy between te teory and experiment in Fig. 1b is negligible small for wide quantum wells. Corrections due to anisotropy. Te next simplification, te reduced mass (µ) and te permittivity (ε) ave been taken to be isotropic and to ave te same values in te quantum well and in barriers. It allows us to take te Bor energy and te Bor radius of te QW material as a system scale. It is clear tat te role of te mass and permittivity anisotropy diminises in te limit of two dimensions. Terefore, if te anisotropy is small enoug to considerably cange te bulk trion energy, ten it can be neglected in finite quantum wells as well. Te discontinuity of te permittivity across te interfaces causes image carges in te barrier areas [0, 1]. For te typical situation of smaller in te barriers compared to te value in te wells, te Coulomb interaction (i.e. binding energy) between particles is effectively increased. For example, te relative increase of te exciton binding energy in narrow GaAs quantum wells due to tis effect is about 10-0% []. Tis value is comparable wit te error of our estimations and cannot qualitatively cange te results. Corrections caused by finite barriers. Te main effect of te quantum well potential is te localization of carriers in te structure growt direction. Te binding energy of te trion depends more on te localization degree, tan on te real sape of te quantum well potential. Te simplest way to take it into account is to consider te real quantum well as an ideal one wit infinite barriers and different effective widts for electrons (L e ) and oles (L ), wic is caused indeed by penetration of teir wave functions in te barriers. Tese quantities sould be treated as penomenological parameters and, wit a reasonable accuracy, can be taken so tat te mean-square deviation of te particles in te growt direction remains te same in te ideal quantum well as in te real one. As as been sown above, a small relative inaccuracy in te effective well widt does not lead

7 7 to a considerable cange of te binding energy. For example, if te widt is taken to be 10% larger te binding energy decreases at most by 4%, wic is quite small compared wit te uncertainty of experimental data. In wide quantum wells L is nearly equal to L e, and one can take L e L L z. In narrow QWs, tese values can be considerably different L e L due to te tails of wave functions penetrating into te barrier, wic depend on te barrier specifics for te electron and te ole. In most cases of narrow QWs L < L e, wic is easy to consider. Indeed, as L decreases, te electron-ole interaction becomes stronger and te trion binding energy increases. Te case L 0 is very similar to te case wen σ = 0, considered in te section III. Terefore, in te frames of model considered, te simple estimation can be obtained: E T B(L e, L e, 1) E T B(L e, L e, σ) E T B (L e, L, σ) E T B (L e, L, 0) = E T B (L e, L e, 0), (18) were te relative difference between te boundaries does not exceed 0% (Fig. 1b). Moreover, te trion binding energy can be estimated more accurately. If σ is not small enoug to cause a considerable localization of te ole in te growt direction (σ > 0.01), one can take: decreases about one order of magnitude compared to σ = 0. Tis appens because, after averaging over te z-coordinate of te ole, te electron-ole interaction becomes weaker tan te electron-electron one. Suc situation is similar to te system wit spatially separated carriers, so te effective distance between te carrier layers increases, as te mass of te ole becomes smaller. Corrections owing to a build-in electric field. Special attention sould be drawn, if te quantum well is not symmetric, and tere is a spatial separation in te growt direction between te carriers. In suc a case, it sould be taken into account tat te binding energy of te trion strongly reduces wit te distance between te electron and ole layers. For example, if te splitting of te layers becomes a B, te binding energy of te X trion decreases more tan one order of magnitude [16]. It is very possible, tat te relatively low binding energy observed in te wide ZnSe quantum well (see Fig. 1b) is caused by a build-in electric field or a quantum well asymmetry leading to some spatial separation of te carriers. Tus, it as been sown, tat for te most of te quantum wells, te binding energy of te negatively carged trion can be easily estimated by means of te universal model containing only few parameters. E T B(L e, L, σ) E T B(L e, L, 1) E T B(L z, L z, 0), were L z = L e + L. (19) VI. CONCLUSIONS In te same way, as it is sown for Eq. (16), te last equality can be rigorously proven, if te ground state functions of te electron and ole in te quantum well are Gaussian functions (15). However, te estimation (19) can still be used in very arbitrary quantum wells. Te opposite case, L > L e, corresponding to a extremely sallow potential for te ole, is muc more complicated. In te extreme case of L e 0 and L te ole is localized in te field of electrons only. In tis limit, if σ = 0, te trion binding energy is equal to tat of an ideally D case, because te ole is localized in te same plane as te electron. However, if σ grows, te zero-point oscillations of te ole becomes important. In te case of te exciton, te adiabatic potential, produced by te electron in growt direction, is: V adiab (z) = z, z 0. (0) Accordingly, it is easy to obtain, tat te exciton binding energy quickly decreases wit te increase of σ: E X B (σ) σ 1/3, σ 0. (1) Te effect for te trion is even stronger. For example, if σ becomes 1, te binding energy of te X trion Te experimental values of te trion binding energy for various semiconductor quantum wells, being represented in corresponding exciton units, are found to be well approximated by an universal function. Te teoretical estimations confirm tat in a simplified Coulomb model te X trion binding energy is nearly independent of te electron-to-ole mass ratio at any value of quantum well widt. Consequently, for te sake of simplicity, calculations of te trion binding energy can be performed wit infinite ole mass values. In narrow quantum wells te experimental data cannot be explained in te frame of an idealized model and additional factors sould be involved in te consideration. Acknowledgments Tis work was supported by te Deutce Forscungsgemeinscaft via Sonderforscungsbereic 410, Russian Foundation for Basic Researc and te Federal Program on Support of Leading Scientific Scools. One of te autors (R.A. Suris) appreciates te support of te Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. [1] H. A. Bete, Z. Pys. 57, 815 (199). [] M. A. Lampert, Pys. Rev. Lett. 1, 450 (1958).

8 8 [3] B. Stebe and A. Ainane, Superlatt. Microstruct. 5, 545 (1989). [4] K. Keng, R. T. Cox, Y M. d Aubigne, F. Bassani, K. Saminadayar and S. Tatarenko, Pys. Rev. Lett. 71, 175 (1993). [5] G. Finkelstein, H. Strikman and I. Bar-Josep, Pys. Rev. Lett. 74, 976 (1995). [6] A. J. Sields, J. L. Osborne, M. Y. Simmons, M. Pepper and D. A. Ritcie, Pys. Rev. B 5, R553 (1995). [7] G. V. Astakov, D. R. Yakovlev, V. P. Koceresko, W. Ossau, J. Nürnberger, F. Fascinger and G. Landwer, Pys. Rev. B 60, R8485 (1999). [8] B. Stebe and G. Munscy and L. Stauffer and F. Dujardin and J. Murat, Pys. Rev. B 56, 1454 (1997). [9] C. Riva, F. M. Peeters and K. Varga, Pys. Rev. B 61, (000). [10] L. C. O. Dacal and J. A. Brum, Pys. Rev. B 65, (00). [11] A. V. Filinov, M. Bonitz and Yu. E. Lozovik, Pys. Stat. Sol. (c) 0, 1441 (003). [1] J. M. Si, F. M. Peeters, G. A. Farias, J. A. K. Freire, G. Q. Hai, J. T. Devreese, S. Bednarek and J. Adamowski, Pys. Rev. B 57, 3900 (1998). [13] I. D. Mikailov, F. J. Betankur, E. A. Escorcia and J. Sierra-Ortega, Pys. Stat. Sol. (b) 34, 590 (00). [14] R. A. Sergeev and R. A. Suris, Pys. Solid State 43, 746 (001). [15] R. A. Sergeev and R. A. Suris, Pys. Stat. Sol. (b) 7, 387 (001). [16] R. A. Sergeev and R. A. Suris, Semiconductors 37, 105 (003). [17] A. Esser, E. Runge, R. Zimmermann and W. Langbein, Pys. Rev. B 6, 83 (000). [18] G. V. Astakov, D. R. Yakovlev, V. P. Koceresko, W. Ossau, W. Fascinger, J. Puls, F. Henneberger, S. A. Crooker, Q. McCulloc, D. Wolverson, N. A. Gippius and A. Waag, Pys. Rev. B 65, (00). [19] T. Wojtowicz, M. Kutrowski, G. Karczewski and J. Kossut, Acta Pysica Polonica A 94, 199 (1998). [0] N. S. Rytova Sov. Pys. Dokl. 10, 754 (1966). [1] L. V. Keldys, JETP Lett. 9, 658 (1979). [] D. B. Tran Toai, R. Zimmermann, M. Grundmann and D. Bimberg, Pys. Rev. B 4, 5906 (1990). [3] S. Candrasekar, Astropys. J. 100, 176 (1944). [4] O. Homburg, K. Sebald, P. Micler, J. Gutowski, H. Wenisc and D. Hommel, Pys. Rev. B 6, 7413 (000). [5] V. P. Koceresko, G. V. Astakov, D. R. Yakovlev, W. Ossau, G. Landwer, T. Wojtowicz, G. Karczewski and J. Kossut, Pys. Stat. Sol. (b) 0, 345 (000). [6] K. Keng, K. Saminadayar and N. Magnea, J. Crys. Growt 184/185, 849 (1998). [7] Z. C. Yan, E. Goovaerts, C. Van Hoof, A. Bouwen and G. Borgs, Pys. Rev. B 5, 5907 (1995). [8] R. Kaur, A. J. Sields, J. L. Osborne, M. Y. Simmons, D. A. Ritcie and M. Pepper, Pys. Stat. Sol. (a) 178, 465 (000). [9] G. Finkelstein, H. Strikman and I. Bar-Josep, Pys. Rev. B 53, R1709 (1996). [30] A. J. Sields, M. Pepper, D. A. Ritcie, M. Y. Simmons and G. A. C. Jones, Pys. Rev. B 51, (1995). [31] V. Huard, R. T. Cox, K. Saminadayar, A. Arnoult and S. Tatarenko, Pys. Rev. Lett. 84, 187 (000). [3] Troug te reference papers tere is some dispersion in values of bulk exciton Rydberg and Bor radius. Terefore we took te averaged values, wic migt differ from te real ones at te most of 15%. [33] L. C. O. Dacal, R. Ferreira, G. Bastard and J. A. Brum, Pys. Rev. B 65, (00). [34] A. L. Efros, Sov. Pys. Semicond. 0, 808 (1986).