65 eV for the BFO film ascribed to Bi3+-related emission [30]. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the near-band-edge transition contributes to our shrunk bandgap. Figure 7 Plot of ( α▪E ) n vs photon energy E . (a) n = 2 and (b) n = 1/2. The plots suggest that the BFO has a direct bandgap of 2.68 eV. On the other hand, it deserves nothing that there is controversy about bandgap sensitivity of the epitaxial thin film to compressive strain from heteroepitaxial {Selleck Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleck Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleck Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleck Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleckchem Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleckchem Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|buy Anti-infection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library ic50|Anti-infection Compound Library price|Anti-infection Compound Library cost|Anti-infection Compound Library solubility dmso|Anti-infection Compound Library purchase|Anti-infection Compound Library manufacturer|Anti-infection Compound Library research buy|Anti-infection Compound Library order|Anti-infection Compound Library mouse|Anti-infection Compound Library chemical structure|Anti-infection Compound Library mw|Anti-infection Compound Library molecular weight|Anti-infection Compound Library datasheet|Anti-infection Compound Library supplier|Anti-infection Compound Library in vitro|Anti-infection Compound Library cell line|Anti-infection Compound Library concentration|Anti-infection Compound Library nmr|Anti-infection Compound Library in vivo|Anti-infection Compound Library clinical trial|Anti-infection Compound Library cell assay|Anti-infection Compound Library screening|Anti-infection Compound Library high throughput|buy Antiinfection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library ic50|Antiinfection Compound Library price|Antiinfection Compound Library cost|Antiinfection Compound Library solubility dmso|Antiinfection Compound Library purchase|Antiinfection Compound Library manufacturer|Antiinfection Compound Library research buy|Antiinfection Compound Library order|Antiinfection Compound Library chemical structure|Antiinfection Compound Library datasheet|Antiinfection Compound Library supplier|Antiinfection Compound Library in vitro|Antiinfection Compound Library cell line|Antiinfection Compound Library concentration|Antiinfection Compound Library clinical trial|Antiinfection Compound Library cell assay|Antiinfection Compound Library screening|Antiinfection Compound Library high throughput|Anti-infection Compound high throughput screening| structure [5, 7]. Considering that the degree of compressive stress imposed by the epitaxial lower layer progressively decreases with increasing BFO thickness [3], our result 2.68 eV from the BFO thin film prepared

by PLD with a 99.19-nm thickness is compared to the reported ones of the BFO film on DSO or STO with comparable thickness as well as that deposited by PLD, as listed in Table 1. Table 1 Bandgap of BFO thin film (prepared by PLD) on different substrate Bandgap (eV) Substrate Film thickness (nm) 2.68 (this work) SRO-buffered STO 99.19 2.67 [8] DSO 100 2.80 [7] Nb-doped STO 106.5 The bandgap of BFO on SRO is almost the same as that on DSO and is smaller than that on Nb-doped STO. It is noted that the in-plane (IP) pseudocubic lattice parameter for SRO and DSO is 3.923 and 3.946 Å [11], respectively, Metabolisms tumor while STO has a cubic lattice parameter of 3.905 Å [7]. Considering the IP

pseudocubic lattice parameter 3.965 Å for BFO [11], the compressive strain for the BFO thin film deposited on STO substrate is Akt inhibitor larger than that on SRO and DSO. Thus, the more compressive ADAMTS5 strain imposed by the heteroepitaxial structure,

the larger bandgap for the BFO thin film, which agrees with the past report [7]. The obtained direct bandgap 2.68 eV of the epitaxial BFO thin film is comparable to 2.74 eV reported in BFO nanocrystals [31] but is larger than the reported 2.5 eV for BFO single crystals [32]. This can be understood because even for the epitaxial thin film, the existence of structural defect such as grain boundaries is evitable, which will result in an internal electric field and then widen the bandgap compared to single crystals. On the other hand, a bandgap of 3 eV for BFO single crystals through photoluminescence investigation is also reported [33]. The broad and asymmetric emission peak at 3 eV in the photoluminescence spectra presented in [33] is attributed to the bandgap together with the near-bandgap transitions arising from oxygen vacancies in BFO. However, the Lorentz model employed to depict BFO optical response in our work reveals the existence of a 3.08-eV transition, which is the transition from the occupied O 2p to unoccupied Fe 3d states or the d-d transition between Fe 3d valence and conduction bands rather than the bandgap [26]. Therefore, the broad and asymmetric peak is more likely to be explained as the overlap of the 3.08-eV transition and the bandgap transition with lower energy.